Linked by ddc_ on Thu 2nd Feb 2012 23:22 UTC
Slackware, Slax There are different reasons people use Unix-like operating systems, including configurable, availability free of charge, powerful command line interface an many more. Some people are motivated by the moral issue: they reject non-free software. Specifically for such users Free Software Foundation developed Guidelines for Free System Distributions and created the list of absolutely free ("as in freedom") distributions. In this article we are going to look at the most recent entry on the list - Parabola GNU/Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 505772
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Rant
by lucas_maximus on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Rant"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

http://penguinday.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/only-become-less/

The GPL is especially harmful against aspiring software developers. With BSD, you can take it, make it better, and sell it. Not with the GPL. (yes, you can sell it, but soon you will compete against a free as in beer modified version of your own program) For a small company, the best way to make money is selling licenses, the whole “make money through services” works best with big companies.


This is essentially what Oracle are doing with Unbreakable Linux, sell a RHEL but rebadged at a lower cost.

The whole thing is setup so you can't make a profit.

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/articl...

A less publicized and unintended use of the GPL is that it is very favorable to large companies that want to undercut software companies. In other words, the GPL is well suited for use as a marketing weapon, potentially reducing overall economic benefit and contributing to monopolistic behavior.


Edited 2012-02-03 10:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Rant
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 15:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Rant"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Well, at least these are arguments based on the facts. Having Free/Open source software no more guarantees a profit than closed source software.

Oracle is actually a poor choice for a comparison, they are really going to differentiate their linux offering from RHEL ( BTRFS, DTrace, ect).

A better example is Xfree86. They developed the first open source x11 server, only to have the industry take what they did and improve it 10 fold without their input after they had a hissy fit over licensing. However, I don't think they would have been as big as they were had it not been Open source in the first place. Those willing to plumb the depths of video card hardware wouldn't be willing to contribute it freely to a non free project, and I don't think a single company would have paid them to do it.

Maybe there are some pieces of software that are best open, and others that are best not open? Or maybe the lesson of Xfee86 is that you can't be a a**hole to people that are smarter and better funded than you and keep control of your project.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Rant
by lucas_maximus on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 15:20 in reply to "RE[3]: Rant"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Oracle is actually a poor choice for a comparison, they are really going to differentiate their linux offering from RHEL ( BTRFS, DTrace, ect).


It did however begin as Larry promising 100% RHEL compatibility.

Maybe there are some pieces of software that are best open, and others that are best not open?


Precisely. I will be releasing my dissertation (written three years ago) as MIT or similar license, it doesn't make sense for me to release it as anything else.

However there is another project that I am currently working on that will be released that will require a license to be purchased.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Rant
by Vanders on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 19:03 in reply to "RE[2]: Rant"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

This is essentially what Oracle are doing with Unbreakable Linux, sell a RHEL but rebadged at a lower cost.


Oracle aren't exactly hurting RHEL. I've yet to run into anyone who's actually using Unbreakable Linux, let alone considering switching from RHEL to Unbreakable.

The whole thing is setup so you can't make a profit.


Sure thing.

http://investors.redhat.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=559647

Fourth quarter revenue of $245 million, up 25% year-over-year
Fourth quarter subscription revenue of $209 million, up 24% year-over-year
For the full year, total revenue was $909.3 million, an increase of 22% over the prior year

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Rant
by lucas_maximus on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 20:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Rant"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Redhat are the exception to the rule.

Please give me an example of a small number of developers that are making substantial profit via the GPL (we are talking less than 50)?

Edited 2012-02-03 20:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2