OSNews

BSD is also a hard place for a company that innovates.

Put your IP up for grabs and then every joe, dick and harry can legally appropriate your own IP and use it against you.

BSD is a license with a true hippy spirit. "Do not make war, live happy together and share the joy." Warm and fuzzy.

GPL on the other hand is colder, more rational. "I share with you and you have to share with me, if we are in this together. If you screw me over, I sink the teeth of law into your double-crossing back." Not everybodies cup of tea, but if you understand the power behind it, you can even build mutual benefits between you and your mortal enemy.

If the world was perfect, BSDL would be the prominent license. Since the world is vile, GPL is gaining.

We humans don't want to do harm by default. Yet, if the situation arises where harm is a matter of you or me, it is a reassuring thought the means are there to afflict pain. That is what the GPL offers.

You play nice. I will play nice too.

You play foul! Exterminate!

It seems that, if you don't want people using your source code, you shouldn't be using an open source license in the first place. GPL, in my mind, seems to be the license of choice for the people that want to "stick it to the man," rather than benefit society as a whole. Think about it: if somebody "steals" your code and improves their product, is that not still benefiting the users? So what if they're not using your product, who cares, are open source developers really that vain?

The idea behind the GPL is that a large, open body of code benefits society as a whole more than any specific piece of software. The GPL offers incentives not just for companies to contribute code, but for individual developers to contribute code. Since it all goes into the pool, and its guaranteed that improvements will flow back into that pool, the incentive of mutual benefit lowers the barriers to making contributions.

As for the point about "sticking it to the man", I think its off-base. By and large, "the man" works very well with the GPL. There have been lots of contributions of open source code, big and small, that could not have happened without the GPL, or a license like it. Consider something like XFS, which never would've been released if SGI thought that HP could just take it and not contribute anything back.

Ok. Let's say that you're right--that the GPL allows for improvements to "flow back into the pool." I agree, but this is only true because it forces you to release any modifications under the GPL. Now here's a question for you: how many companies do you think this puts off because using your improvements would require them to give away their product? Strictly speaking, the GPL is impractical when your business model is to actually sell your software, which are the kind of products most consumers use.

Now, if you're software can help even a fraction of that, it should be clear that it's going to affect a lot more people than if you restrict yourself to GPLed products. Less people = less benefit = not as good.

You can call it "fair trade". You give me something, and I give you something. Fair and square. If you don't like the deal, stay away.

GPL may turn off some companies, but it doesn't matter as long as it is released. Then society can still access it, no matter whether a company wants to or not. No matter how you look at it, it will benefit society - it's simply unavoidable. And the protection of the freedoms are essential here.

BSD is the perfect license for a perfect world. But it sucks in reality if we're talking about benefitting society. A proprietary solution will be so expensive that persons cannot (or will not) buy it. And then there is no benefit for society.

Of course, if they keep the price low (no more than 10$) they can of course sell it and the software will be spread widely and through that benefit society. But if we follow your line of thinking, one could claim that warez benefits society. Personally I don't think so, but it's just a natural extension of your line of thinking

BTW: It's perfectly possible to make a living out of selling GPL'ed software. But when participating in such projects, one should not forget the nature of GPL.

I've always wondered how it's possible to use so many words, yet so absolutely nothing at all. Among other things, the first half of what you said is completely irrelevant: I'm not saying the GPL is necessarily bad, rather that it doesn't benefit society as much as other licenses.

Secondly, you're argument for the GPL benefiting society basically boils down to "nobody uses proprietary software," which is laughable to say the least.

I've only ever heard of one company that sells GPLed software--transgaming--and last time I checked they weren't even selling it, but rather selling a service to download it and updates! It seems they're fairly desparate to sell their products, and I highly doubt it was a sound business decision. On the other hand, I wonder how much money they'd be making (and how much they'd be benefiting the community) if wine had been released under a more liberal license.

Edited 2006-09-24 02:14

The GPL isn't about free R&D for vendors of proprietary software. It's about giving people access to source code. It's about building a large ecosystem of open code and open systems. Developers of GPL software aren't in the business of doing work for free in the hopes that some company will find it useful. GPL developers are in the business of creating a community based on open code.

Ok, that's fine. All I'm saying is, it doesn't benefit the community as much as people think it does. You've basically said what I started out with: the GPL is mainly used by people who don't want companies or people selling their work (they "stick it to the man"). That's fine, just don't say you're benefiting the community in the process, since all you're really doing is (slightly) benefiting the developer community.

All the same companies you don't want involved with open source software in the first place.

People don't get the GPL because they don't understand it's supposed to be revolutionary and not evolutionary. It's not supposed to make things better, that's not what RMS has ever been about: It's about fundamentally changing the way things are.

In that respect, I think it's failed; not that I'd expect to to succeed all by itself inside of 25 years.

Many people sell software which links against LGPL libraries, which is something I think the FSF is quite unhappy about but sees as a necessary "evil." But yes, if you want to sell people the rights to use your software it won't work to license your software and give them far-reaching rights included in the GPL.
We all know this, and that's why we like the license.

The GPL is user-centric. That's what makes it outstanding. The BSD license is little more than an attempt to not get sued while letting people use your code. It's developer-centric.

Think about it: if somebody "steals" your code and improves their product, is that not still benefiting the users?

No, but it does benefit D-Link.

Yes, which in turn benefits their users. How do you think they get people to buy their products? By improving them, of course, and reusing someone else's work gives them a base to work from rather than waste their time reinventing the wheel.

r_a_trip

BSD is also a hard place for a company that innovates.

Put your IP up for grabs and then every joe, dick and harry can legally appropriate your own IP and use it against you.


With BSD you can take an existing program and make it 10 times better and then just make binaries available.

How does this hurt innovation ?

Companies don't have to make any code BSD if they don't want.

bytecoder

GPL, in my mind, seems to be the license of choice for the people that want to "stick it to the man," rather than benefit society as a whole. Think about it: if somebody "steals" your code and improves their product, is that not still benefiting the users? So what if they're not using your product, who cares, are open source developers really that vain?

The GPL is not about sticking it to the man. It is about keeping software free and not letting the giant company stick it's boot up your ass/arse.

The main purpose of the GPL is to "get what you give."

If you take some other person's code and use it in your own program you have to give it back because it was given to you. Share and share alike. "How dare you steal my work and not give back !"

BSD doesn't have to give back, but GPL does. This is what caused the death of OpenDarwin since Apple could wait however long it wanted or needed to release the x86 code.

Of course Apple also didn't have to release anything since BSD allows you to keep it private.

If it were GPL it would not have happened.

I'm sure red hat and all the other giant linux makers don't feel like they are getting abused by the GPL.

If you don't want to release your code under the GPL don't use GPL code to begin with !

Use BSD or make your own. It's not that hard to understand. BSD = do what ever GPL = no leeching

Use BSD or make your own. It's not that hard to understand. BSD = do what ever GPL = no leeching

Not anything, you have to keep the copyright notices.

I know I'm being pedantic here but, believe it or not, some companies have a problem complying even with that.

Like SCO/Caldera

And this post is mod'ed plus 5 because....?

"Put your IP up for grabs and then every joe, dick and harry can legally appropriate your own IP and use it against you."

Except you dont have to put your IP up for grabs with the BSD license.

//Except you dont have to put your IP up for grabs with the BSD license.//

You don't have to put your IP up for grabs with the GPL either.

If your are using GPL code, you didn't write it in the first place, so it isn't your IP.

Put your IP up for grabs and then every joe, dick and harry can legally appropriate your own IP and use it against you.

I really find that comment hard to swallow. If I put up my code licenced under the GPL, and you take my code and improve it. Then how is that using it against me? Lets remember that you have to allow me to also use your improved code which I can use against you can I not?

So it becomes a battle of who can improve the code the fastest. To me, this benefits everyone, unfortunately, it just doesn't seem to work that way, too many have the not invented here syndrome. And I find it hard to imagine that slime balls like the big proprietary corps don't just take GPL code and lock it up in their closed crap which you'd never know anyway? Or is that what you're talking about?

You have no clue what you are ranting about. If dlink wanted to take the easy way out and use someone elses code, something with a BSD licence is the obvious choice, not a GPL licence. Whoever was involved in that decision/f--k-up to lift GPL code seriously dropped the ball. From their actions I can only conclude that the company is managed by idiots.

//If dlink wanted to take the easy way out and use someone elses code, something with a BSD licence is the obvious choice, not a GPL licence.//

There is a second obvious choice.

D-Link could have simply taken the GPL-licensed source code (which apparently was very well suited to their product), made any required modifications, embedded it into their product, sold the resulting complete product, and since selling the product is an act of re-distributing GPL code, they could have published the modified and re-distributed source code on their website with an accompanying GPL license.

The one and only act of D-Link that required their resulting source code to be GPL was that they re-distributed modified GPL code. OK, so the GPL licesne says that modified & redistributed GPL code has to be GPL itself. So D-Link publish it as GPL source code, and everything is sweet. It would even make their product more attractive to buy, since the source code is available.

What is so hard about that? I simply cannot see the difficulty.

Please note that in doing this, and simply complying with the GPL, D-Link still get to sell the product ...

Edited 2006-09-24 23:15

Well, you might have phrased it a bit differently, but you make a good point.

When these things go to court, we've already lost. Even if we win, we lose.

Other companies looks at this and see "Use Linux, Get Sued". It's bad PR.

These companies are used to complying with proprietary licenses, which tend to be of a piece. Compliance with GPL requires different practices, with which they may already be uncomfortable, due to lack of experience.

GPL is *not* as simple a license as some seem to think.

Anyway, it's much better if these things can be settled amicably.

Sorry to interrupt your troll. ;-)

-Steve

Actually, it's all very simple.

If any part of the GPL is invalid all of the GPL is invalid, and therefore you don't have the right to distribute it at all.

Complying with the GPL is no different than complying with other licenses. You are granted some rights, and you lose them if you violate the license.

In this case with D-Link the argument was whether or not the GPL was valid. D-Link was of the impression, that it was only part valid, and there could distribute as it pleased them without any consequences.

The Court told them they were wrong.

Morale: Comply with the license.

Question.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the GPL were found not to be invalid in some way. Copyright law defaults to the creator of the work having all the rights and no one else having any. The creator can, through a license, grant various rights to others. In this case it's the GPL.

Taking the Linux kernel as an example, everyone would lose the right to use it, including Linus and the rest of the kernel devs, since no one owns the copyright for the complete work. Just bits and pieces.

Theoretically then, a new license could be chosen which would restore various rights to us to use the Linux kernel as a whole.

However, would the kernel copyright holders not be in the same position they would be in if they wanted to change the kernel license to something other than GPL right now? i.e., wouldn't all holders of all the copyrights involved have to agree on a license. That would include current developers, developers who have dropped out of site, and the beneficiaries of those who are dead? (Or rewrite any parts for which they could not come to an agreement or find the author.)

So, *if* GPL were invalidated, would that likely make most GPL'd software we take for granted today unusable forever, except for those pieces which could be combined into some work by copyright holders who happen to choose compatible licenses for the pieces involved?

We laugh and take lightly silly attempts like D-Link's. But if someone did happen to score, couldn't that mean total devastation for GPL software over night?

I'm certainly no expert. I don't even *like* thinking about licenses. But I would appreciate others' views.

Edited 2006-09-23 21:52

Of course, if the GPL was ruled invalid, completely or in part, it would mean more or less total devastation.

There is however nothing that makes me believe such a situation will arise. On the contrary. GPL holds in court, even though some companies would rather they could treat GPL as "public domain".

When these things go to court, we've already lost. Even if we win, we lose.

Unfortunately that doesn't mean you can afford simply never to go to court. The world is unfair that way.

Other companies looks at this and see "Use Linux, Get Sued".

Well, it's like when you sell newspapers, for example: Certainly you want people to be interested in the magazines you have on display and be comfortable buying at your shop, so you make sure they can take their time browsing your offerings. But if people start reading magazines for hours and then leaving without buying them, then your hospitality has not worked in your favour and was misplaced. So you will usually draw the line somewhere and start reminding people that if they really, really like a publication, then they have to buy it. And if someone doesn't get your subtle clues, you have to kick him from the premises.

The same is true for software. When I publish a program under the GPL, obviously I want people to use it. But not under all conditions. If all I wanted was the ego kick from having lots of people use my code, the GPL wouldn't be the right license for me. Instead, I want people to publish any changes that they make to my code (very roughly speaking), so if someone uses my program in a real product but keeps his changes to himself, my generosity hasn't furthered my interests. And if some people don't heed the nice requests to publish the source, well - they have to learn it the hard way.

The FSF does try very hard to settle things amicably. Sometimes, however, that's just not possible.

In any case, you're off-base on the "GPL is hard to comply with" comment. The GPL is no harder to comply with than the source-license of most commercial products. Software companies, by necessity, have very strict procedures for dealing with IP issues. If they choose not to adhere to the GPL, it's not because of complexity, but because they think they can get away with it.

Other companies looks at this and see "Use Linux, Get Sued". It's bad PR.


If this had happen before 2002 i don't think it would of been bad PR for Linux, but with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. It might put fear in the US companies to use GPL software in their embedded products.

Edited 2006-09-24 10:39

happycamper

What does accounting reform legislation have to do with linux?

How is getting D-Link to stop violating the GPL bad PR ?

What does getting D-Link to stop violating the GPL have to do with insider trading or misstating financial statements ?

What does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 have to do with this ?

What does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 have to do with this.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the GPL were mention and because it was brought up it might
put some fear into companies executives about using linux to some extent, thinking if they don't fully comply with the GPL it might become a federal violation.
http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/article.pl?sid=06/02/15/2127200
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/publications/Sarbanes-Oxley.html
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1934885,00.asp

Edited 2006-09-24 12:22

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the GPL were mention and because it was brought up it might
put some fear into companies executives about using linux to some extent, thinking if they don't fully comply with the GPL it might become a federal violation.

The Sarbox concern is FUD that was debunked a long time ago. You can only violate the GPL by distributing copyrighted code in a non-compliant manner, there is absolutely no consequence to users or organizations that deploy GPL code in a non-compliant manner.

The IP requirements in Sarbox are in place to force organizations to take reasonable measures to ensure they are not using products that violate IP laws or otherwise unlicensed products or technology. The GPL inherently gives users the freedom to do whatever they want with the code, with restrictions only existing on redistribution.

The FUD was originally raised because of the risk of IP from proprietary products being included in GPL code such as linux, raising the spectre of Fortune 500 companies violating other companies' IP by deploying linux in their data centers etc. The fact of the matter is, the risk is similar to GPL protected code being implemented in proprietary code with the exception that it can't as easily be inspected and verified. The average CIO can't be any more sure that Microsoft hasn't stolen linux code than they can be reasonably sure that a GPL product hasn't stolen Microsoft code.

Sarbox simply requires them to take reasonable measures to ensure compliance. The issue at hand has no bearing on Sarbox.

"Other companies looks at this and see "Use Linux, Get Sued". It's bad PR. "

Good thing you don't ever get sued when you violate proprietary licenses....

"Other companies looks at this and see "Use Linux, Get Sued". It's bad PR."

Yep, that is exactly what is happening, and that is exactly why many manufacturers are starting to get away from any GPL code for any of their designs.
The GPL'ers see it as "Hurray! we won!", while the reality is that every time a violation is pointed out, and gplviolations.org steps in or the FSS, you can bet that the company that is in violation will quickly either remove the product from market, or redesign the offending product under a new OS, such as Windriver's or a *BSD.
So the truth is that the users are the ones who really loose, because the new products will now probably have an embedded OS which they have to pay royalties (unless it's BSD based), and the added cost is passed on to consumers.
I'm sure that D-Link will now think twice before using any GPL product in their embedded systems, just like Linksys did, and now the majority of their products are no longer Linux based.
So, choose your poison

"The GPL'ers see it as "Hurray! we won!", while the reality is that every time a violation is pointed out, and gplviolations.org steps in or the FSS, you can bet that the company that is in violation will quickly either remove the product from market, or redesign the offending product under a new OS, such as Windriver's or a *BSD."

So, uh, how is this a loss for the GPL if companies that violates it and ignore it are no longer using prodcuts licensed under it?

"I'm sure that D-Link will now think twice before using any GPL product in their embedded systems, just like Linksys did, and now the majority of their products are no longer Linux based."

Since these companies didn't contribute back how is this a loss?

"So, uh, how is this a loss for the GPL if companies that violates it and ignore it are no longer using prodcuts licensed under it?"

One less GPL based product being used on the market.

"Since these companies didn't contribute back how is this a loss?"

The users of the product are the ones at loss, who will now have to pay more for the newer products due to licensing, unless the manufacturers choose some other open source non-GPL'ed license.

It's really funny, when Joe Doe goes out to CompUSA and buys a router, then finds out that it's Linux based and the sources are nowhere, and Joe runs out to gplviolations.org to announce a violation, and in the end the router manufacturer admits the error, removes the code and releases a new version of the router with a higher price tag due to the new research and time needed for changes.

Way to go Joe! LOL

But of course, Joe was right, because thats the law. Right?

Maybe embedded developers and companies should have a read here before planning their products (We did ): http://www.wasabisystems.com/gpl/

The GPL still does not lose anything when someone choses another license. The GPL is a license no more and no less and it has no greedy company behind it trying to make money from it.

I would simply buy the router made by the other guys that IS based on linux and cheaper. Heck, I usually do not go out router shopping everyday anyway, it ain't like I pick one up each week to go with my gallon of milk.

So a company would charge me more for a mistake on their part? Well yea they would but that is regardless of what it is based on. Considering they already have non-linux products they should not need a linux based product and if they are going with a linux based product then they should know why they are going that way.

BTW - You do know that the DLINK issue isn't really about the requirements of the GPL. They weren't debating the GPL or anything. They just flat claimed that it was not legally binding and have NOW been told they were wrong. I didn't even see IP enter the discussion.

//It's really funny, when Joe Doe goes out to CompUSA and buys a router, then finds out that it's Linux based and the sources are nowhere, and Joe runs out to gplviolations.org to announce a violation, and in the end the router manufacturer admits the error, removes the code and releases a new version of the router with a higher price tag due to the new research and time needed for changes.

Way to go Joe! LOL

But of course, Joe was right, because thats the law. Right? //

Joe was indeed right.

The company sells many times more of the original Linux-based product than they do of the higher-priced closed product.

The company scratches its head, and thinks "why did we go to the expense of a re-design when we made heaps more money out of the open product in the first place?".

"...releases a new version of the router with a higher price tag due to the new research and time needed for changes.
Way to go Joe! LOL
But of course, Joe was right, because thats the law. Right? "

So what you're saying is that we should let corporations get away with anything as long as it leads to cheaper products. Wow, sweatshops never looked better.

//So what you're saying is that we should let corporations get away with anything as long as it leads to cheaper products. Wow, sweatshops never looked better.//

Say what?

Linux is produced by a co-operative effort. People all over the world devote many hours in productive and mutually beneficial co-operation to produce it. It is a collaboration.

Co-operation means that they want to do this.

Look it up for yourself:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Co-operation&gwp=13

http://www.answers.com/topic/collaboration-1
(meaning 1 applies, not meaning 2).

Collaboration: Shared objectives; Sense of urgency and commitment; Dynamic process; Sense of belonging; Open communication; Mutual trust and respect; Complementary, diverse skills and knowledge; Intellectual agility

Companies can (and do) use Linux in their products, to the benefit of both the company and the users of the companies products, provided only that the source code is kept open (that is the one and only requirement) so that the co-operation and the mutual benefit can continue and expand.

How the hell did you arrive at "sweatshops" from all that?

A "sweatshop" arises out of heavy competition, forced labour and commercial exploitation.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=sweatshop&gwp=13

Youv'e got all your definitions thoroughly twisted and back-to-front.

Edited 2006-09-26 05:31

//The GPL'ers see it as "Hurray! we won!", while the reality is that every time a violation is pointed out, and gplviolations.org steps in or the FSS, you can bet that the company that is in violation will quickly either remove the product from market, or redesign the offending product under a new OS, such as Windriver's or a *BSD. //

Actually, no. In nearly every case, the company involved has opted to do exactly what they were supposed to do in the first place, and that is re-publish the modified code under the GPL.

//So the truth is that the users are the ones who really loose, because the new products will now probably have an embedded OS which they have to pay royalties (unless it's BSD based), and the added cost is passed on to consumers.//

Actually, no. The products go on to the market just as they were released, and the only thing that needs to be done by the violating company is publish the code.

//I'm sure that D-Link will now think twice before using any GPL product in their embedded systems, just like Linksys did, and now the majority of their products are no longer Linux based. So, choose your poison //

The Linksys product was the WRT54g. This is by far and away the most successful Linksys product, and it is so precisely because the code is GPL.

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3562391

This link above says it nicely. "It’s also the story of how the open source movement can produce a win-win scenario for both consumers and commercial endors."

http://www.seattlewireless.net/LinksysWrt54g
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4729641740.html
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Linksys-Blue-Box-Router-HOWTO/
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040527.html
http://www.batbox.org/wrt54g-linux.html

Based on this success story, here is an example of what other manufacturers of similar products are doing:

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/wireless/asus-wl700ge-wifi-router-bu...
http://wl700g.info/forumdisplay.php?f=87
http://wiki.openwrt.org/OpenWrtDocs/Hardware/Asus/WL700gE

Edited 2006-09-25 05:32

"Actually, no. In nearly every case, the company involved has opted to do exactly what they were supposed to do in the first place, and that is re-publish the modified code under the GPL."

Sure they released the code, which is now useless on their new WRT54G, because the hardware was redesigned to run on Windriver's OS. Wonder why?

"Actually, no. The products go on to the market just as they were released, and the only thing that needs to be done by the violating company is publish the code."

Sure, except that this exact option of releasing IP is a no no by many companies.
If they only had to release the modified GPL code, then that wouldn't be any problem, and I can understand that perfectly and I also see it as the correct approach.
I modify a public piece of code, I give back the modifications EXCEPT my own additions, unless I want to contribute MY work. That's why the LGPL and BSDs are more corporate friendly than GPL.

//Sure, except that this exact option of releasing IP is a no no by many companies.
If they only had to release the modified GPL code, then that wouldn't be any problem, and I can understand that perfectly and I also see it as the correct approach.
I modify a public piece of code, I give back the modifications EXCEPT my own additions, unless I want to contribute MY work. That's why the LGPL and BSDs are more corporate friendly than GPL.//

When will you get it through your head? The IP did not belong to Linksys, or to D-Link. The code was GPL code, it was Linux, iptables and samba. These are all GPL licensed code. The only thing that D-Link and Linksys did was modify it slightly to run on their hardware box.

The modifications you make ARE your own additions. We are taliking about a few dozen lines of code to get it to talk to the hardware, amongst millions of lines of GPL code. What are you on about here? You make no sense whatsoever.

The vast bulk of the code on these products was not Linksys code. It was not D-Link code. It was GPL code.

Therefore, the companies give nothing away by publishing the code. They are not "releasing" it - it wasn't their code to begin with.

D-Link and Linksys had virtually none of THEIR work in the products to start with. So they don't give away THEIR work by publishing the code.

Yes, Linksys did produce a closed-source variant of the WRT54g rounter, using Windriver code. It was more expensive for Linksys (because they had to pay Windriver), and it sells nowhere near as well (because it is closed source).

So which turned out better for Linksys? (1) Use Linux, iptables and samba, incur virtually no development costs, publish the code and sell the router as functional, open and cheap, or (2) Use Windriver, incur development costs, sell the router as so-called "improved" but closed, and watch it gather dust on the shelves.

Let me tell you, (1) is far, far better outcome than (2) for companies like Linksys or D-Link, and other companies like ASUS are beginning to realise this.

Edited 2006-09-25 23:34

I'm no expert, but this seems like really good news. It looks like a formal vindication of the legal status of the GPL of a very comprehensive sort.

This case was not a formal vindication of the GPL of any comprehensive sort. This case was about legal reimbursements relating to a previous civil suit in Germany, which is irrelevant to everybody else.

Edited 2006-09-24 09:55

P.J. is actually very objective. She has an opinion, but that's not a problem because she is being honest about it, and her opinion of one or another company does NOT harm her professional attitude in regard to cases. It just means she's letting you know what she thinks about that or this company.

It has no influence however, on the way she does her "job".

Unfortunately it appears you're right.

Yeah, but the fact that Welte is a kernel hacker and not a lawyer, at least gives us a measure of the passion he has for coding. Not everything is governed by money.

I think that Linux has been doing just fine with the GPL license and all that entails.

Has anyone seen a more widely adopted open source operating system around?

Other than the first sentence your post isn't very clear. Using multiple pronouns inside a sentence without mentioning who the pronouns may be assigned to makes for a difficult sentence to decipher. Care to point out who "our" and "you" is in your sentence?

//... these kinds of cases may make it less likely that companies will use Linux, in favor of say, BSD.//

Why?

If you use Linux in your product, the one and only requirement if you want to redistribute that product is that you publish the source code of Linux as it appears in your product.

What is so onerous about that?

You didn't write the code for Linux in the first place, so it isn't your IP. Linux code is published elsewhere, so it isn't like you are giving anything away. If you modified it slightly ... well, you have to publish what those modifications were, but it isn't a biggy and that is the very small price you pay for getting all that Linux code written for you in the fist place.

What is so onerous about that? You didn't write the code for Linux in the first place, so it isn't your IP.

Yeah, but I may want to add my own special sauce to the code but not contribute that back to the community. Companies want to do this all the time. Once I put it in an embedded device, I'm "distributing" the code; therefore, I have no choice but to contribute it. Given that BSD is an excellent package, I'd have to think very carefully before going with Linux. It might not make sense, if I want to retain my own IP.

"I am sure they will think twice before they violate any open source license. Is that what you'll meant to say?"

Nope.
Many embedded developers and companies don't really understand the GPL license.
They don't understand that they have to give away their IP sources if they use GPL.
So once they get bitten by the (G)eneral (P)ublic and the (L)icense, they quickly repair the damage by either removing the product from market of by redesigning the software basing it on another OS.

Why are they using something they do not understand? Nobody made them use it. By using it they pretty much are saying they agree to it which would imply understanding. If I can figure it out how hard can it be.

//Many embedded developers and companies don't really understand the GPL license.
They don't understand that they have to give away their IP sources if they use GPL. //

Nope.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Why don't you understand that if the use GPL code it isn't their IP sources to give away?

//they quickly repair the damage by either removing the product from market of by redesigning the software basing it on another OS.//

Nope. This is not what happens. They publish the code along with the minor modifications to it that they made to get it to run on their hardware, and they sell the product successfully thereafter.

In fcat, other companies then see how successful such a product is, and they begin to do the same thing themselves.