Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 17th Jul 2011 20:58 UTC, submitted by fran
Thread beginning with comment 481406
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No. It is FUD because you singled out GPL earlier. If you merely said, any free and open source software can be supported by multiple vendors, this is true and the strength of it because there is no vendor lock-in.[q/]
I didn't single out the GPL, I just said it is a problem ... which it is. Because we were talking about Linux kernel patches that must be GPL licensed.
[q]However Oracle isn't merely supporting. They are engaging is under handed tactics which they have been doing to many others in the past and those were proprietary vendors. It has everything to do with the way it is running its business
I didn't single out the GPL, I just said it is a problem ... which it is. Because we were talking about Linux kernel patches that must be GPL licensed.
[q]However Oracle isn't merely supporting. They are engaging is under handed tactics which they have been doing to many others in the past and those were proprietary vendors. It has everything to do with the way it is running its business
How it is underhanded?? Not very nice maybe, however they haven't violated the terms of the license. They have just found a (quite obvious loophole).
How it is underhanded?? Not very nice maybe, however they haven't violated the terms of the license. They have just found a (quite obvious loophole).
I think most people would consider "not very nice" to be underhanded. Also exploiting a loophole could also be considered underhanded.
One uses such terms against lawyers for navigating crooked paths through the law, why not this?
Don't play semantics. Exploiting loopholes and not playing nice are just other ways of saying that it is underhanded. Btw, you are wrong to claim that patches have to be GPL. They can under be under any GPL compatible license. These include MIT, revised BSD and many other licenses. There are some modules which are under BSD merged in the Linux kernel so this is not even theoretical.





Member since:
2005-07-06
No. It is FUD because you singled out GPL earlier. If you merely said, any free and open source software can be supported by multiple vendors, this is true and the strength of it because there is no vendor lock-in. However Oracle isn't merely supporting. They are engaging is under handed tactics which they have been doing to many others in the past and those were proprietary vendors. It has everything to do with the way it is running its business