Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL

[Rjack]

Thufir Hawat wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:44:38 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>
> > "IBM wasn't happy when Sun released Java under the GPL instead
> > of a more permissive open source software license. It's
> > possible that if IBM acquired Sun, Big Blue would move Java
> > towards a multi-licensed approach and potentially put it under
> > the Apache Software License in addition to the GPL. This would
> > make it easier for Sun's Java technology to be integrated into
> > existing open source Java implementations, such as the Apache
> > Harmony project, and it would also make it easier for Java to
> > be repurposed by third parties for proprietary uses."
> >
> > http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2009/03/report-ibm-eyes-sun.ars
> >
> >
> > The SFLC suits are having an effect -- just not the one they
> > hoped for. As more and more companies move away from "free
> > software" to "open source software" the FSF propaganda campaign
> > is falling flat on its ass.
> >
> > Sincerely, Rjack :)
>
>
> You have it backwards.  When *sun* licenses software, IBM likes
> apache/ BSD type licenses.  When *IBM* licenses software, ie
> gnu/linux, IBM likes the gpl.

You Freetards never learn. For Christ's sake, IBM was the World's
first viscous computer monopolist. How soon Freetards forget! IBM
likes anything that enhances their bottom line. Freetards are
Micro$oft's enemy. IBM like Al Quaeda, believes "My enemy's enemy is
my friend."

IBM wrote the first edition book on computer monopoly practices.
Micro$oft simply read that book and wrote the second edition. IBM
will behead its Freetard friends the very second its becomes
profitable to do so. I am utterly amazed at you Freetard sheep lying
in bed with a Tyranasaurus like IBM. Big Blue knows the GPL is
unenforceable and will wipe your Freetard asses with it the moment
it's profitable to do so.

> Obviously, if you're planning on modifying source and don't want
> to share those changes then a bsd type license is to your
> advantage.
>
>
> -Thufir