Linked by Howard Fosdick on Mon 13th Dec 2010 23:11 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless It's hard to predict the future because we humans prefer to think in terms of familiar paradigms. Even the most brilliant of our species are subject to this flaw. Now, Microsoft faces its turn. The owner of the operating system that likely runs your personal computer, the company that achieved monopoly with Windows and ducked the Department of Justice's scythe to keep it, faces a midlife crisis as the world goes gaga over portable consumer devices. This is the story of what's happening to Microsoft in the handheld operating system markets -- and how it parallels the earlier, similar journeys of IBM Corporation and Digital Equipment Corporation. Can Microsoft achieve dominance on mobile devices?
Thread beginning with comment 453484
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

This is because if we did make any modifications e.g. bug fixes, and deployed to a live site we are required by the GPL to give the code back. This is of course simply unacceptable, to our management thus no GPL software.


You should hire a lawyer, or at least ask the lawyer that explained how Microsoft's licensing works, to explain what GPL requires of you.
Because you seem to think that GPL requires giving back. Because it does not require anything like it. GPL does require you provide the source code with the compiled code to the person/company you distribute it to under GPL. And under GPL(v1, v2 and v3) you providing services based on the modified code is not classified as distribution of object code.

I see the likes of Sleepycat and MySQL marketing department had a lot of success in making people believe that GPL is "da evil, virral and horrible" license.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Because it does not require anything like it. GPL does require you provide the source code with the compiled code to the person/company you distribute it to under GPL.


How is that massively different? GPL code effectively owns itself so what is stopping them from releasing it once they have it. The code can end up legally in the public domain.

Edited 2010-12-14 14:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

How is that massively different? GPL code effectively owns itself so what is stopping them from releasing it once they have it. The code can end up legally in the public domain.

Because you are not "required to give it back"(quoting you). And the people that have your code are also not required to give it back. You however can't force them to keep it to themselves...
Technically all and any code will become part of public domain after a certain amount of time.
GPLed code is still copyrighted and is not in public domain.

You should make it clear that you represent a COTS ISV, so there is a clear bias against GPL in your sector. It's not baseless and something I can agree with. But it's not a reason to spread FUD about GPL (like Sleepycat did)

IP law education - it's very beneficial in our world.

Reply Parent Score: 4