[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Significance of the GP licence.

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:07:42 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <> wrote:

Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow
some proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a
real operating system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks
will understand the GPL is unenforceable. That's the reason
Microsoft embraced the GPL -- it suppressed new competition.

Perhaps the Linux kernel will continue to be improved under a
free (free as in freedom) license such as BSD or Apache.

You still don't get it, RJ. The GPL is the most popular free licence, and that popularity has a reason.

Working on a BSD kernal is so much less popular than working on Linux. That has a reason, too.

Reason? So do birds. flowers and trees. So what is your point? You
are correct (for once). I don't get it. Statements usually have to
make sense. What's your rhetorical focus?

Quite simply, that it is the GPL itself which is the main reason for
the popularity of Linux amongst the people who write it.  If, for
some currently inconceivable reason, Linux was relicenced under what
you call a "free as in freedom" licence, many developers would cease

Let them go home, place their candle under a basket and buy Microsoft
software. No problem there.

This might leave a mere rump, scarcely larger than the groups which maintain the BSD kernels.

RJack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]