Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Apr 2012 20:09 UTC, submitted by fran
Linux "Linux vendor Canonical said it has 'no interest' in Linux kernel development. Two weeks ago a Linux Foundation report showed that since version 2.6.32, Microsoft had committed more code to the Linux kernel than Canonical. Since then, Canonical has faced claims from rivals that it does not contribute to Linux as much as it should given its popularity. Recently Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth told The Inquirer that his company has no interest in contributing to the Linux kernel." Why is this such a bad thing? You can contribute more to open source than code alone. Like, I don't know, users?
Permalink for comment 515073
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Actually the GPL states, give forward. Not give back.

It states that if you give someone the binaries of a program you made or modified you should give that user the source.

It also is clear that you can ask money for the changes/code you made.

I believe the GPL also states it should be 'buildable' or have instructions.

It does not state anything about giving your modifications to the original developers.

All the GPL does is garantee that the user of the software is free to do with it what he/she wants (while complying to the GPL ofcourse).

So if you sell your modifications to some company, you'll have to give them the source. It does not mean that anyone else will get the source.

Obviously your or the company that you sold it to can give the binaries/source to the original developers if they want to. But there is nothing which demands that.

Reply Parent Score: 3