Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st Jun 2012 23:56 UTC, submitted by Modafinil
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The Samba Team and seven kernel hackers have come together with Software Freedom Conservancy to help efforts to ensure compliance with the GPL by those who implement Linux and other GPL software. Richard Hillesley talked to Bradley Kuhn of Software Freedom Conservancy, Jeremy Allison of Samba, and Matthew Garrett, who works in his spare time with the GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers."
Thread beginning with comment 520495
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: What a waste of time....
by Valhalla on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE: What a waste of time.... "
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

They would be free to do that, just as the original developers would be free to maintain their own open source version. In the end, everyone would have been better off and,

How so? You realise that the reason so many companies are collaboratively developing Linux is because they are legally bound to share all their enhancements with eachother if they want to be able to distribute them.

If that was not the case then there would be a large incentive for these companies to keep their enhancements proprietary so as to gain a competitive edge on the others, which would result in the companies only submitting enhancements which they felt would give them no competive benefits if kept to themselves, thus hampering the overall progress of the project.

if the proprietary Linux worked better (say by having a stable driver interface), that might have created a reason for the open source developers to strive for improvement in that area.

The reason the Linux devs doesn't make it easy to keep proprietary out of tree drivers is because they want to enforce the creation of open source in-tree drivers.

This has in turn had a great impact on the availability of open source drivers as many companies find it's much easier to simply submit either a open driver or the necessary specs to make one instead of maintaining their own out-of-tree proprietary driver.

This also benefits other systems than Linux as these open source drivers are often dual-licenced and in the case they are not it's much easier to reverse-engineer from full driver source code than it is from black box hardware.

Looking past the driver interface, if the 'proprietary Linux' did things better and the 'open Linux' wanted those enhancements they would then have to duplicate those efforts, how can you see this as an improvement on what we have now, where thanks to the GPL these enhancements directly make their way into the project without any need for duplicated effort?

Competition drives innovation, pure and simple.

There's really no competition when one of the participants can take anything the other does and not have to give anything back themselves.

FreeBSD has turned out to be so much better as a desktop system since Apple decided to use it as part of their OSX?

Reply Parent Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18



If that was not the case then there would be a large incentive for these companies to keep their enhancements proprietary so as to gain a competitive edge on the others, which would result in the companies only submitting enhancements which they felt would give them no competive benefits if kept to themselves, thus hampering the overall progress of the project.


Hello, have you heard of WebKit?

There's really no competition when one of the participants can take anything the other does and not have to give anything back themselves.


Actually if you remember correctly, during the browser wars we went from.

http://img.tfd.com/cde/_MOSAIC.GIF

To

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_Explorer_5_on_Windows_98...

In a 5 years.

Because of the intense competition between NetScape and Microsoft. Once Netscape was dead, Microsoft had no incentive to make IE any better and thus we had years of Stagnation.

Until people started moving to Pheonix/Firefox for a better browsing Experience.

FreeBSD has turned out to be so much better as a desktop system since Apple decided to use it as part of their OSX?


FreeBSD doesn't want to be a Desktop OS. It doesn't even mention the word on it own home page.

The license allows Apple to do this is they want.

Also Apple has contributed to CUPS, LLVM/Clang and WebKit.

Edited 2012-06-03 06:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually if you remember correctly, during the browser wars we went from.

http://img.tfd.com/cde/_MOSAIC.GIF

To

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_Explorer_5_on_Windows_98...

In a 5 years.

Because of the intense competition between NetScape and Microsoft.


That wasn’t really competition, IE was preinstalled…

Reply Parent Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Hello, have you heard of WebKit?

The majority of webkit is LGPL licenced, what is your point?

FreeBSD doesn't want to be a Desktop OS. It doesn't even mention the word on it own home page.

It was a response to darknexus notion that it's a good thing for a project when a company picks up their source and not contribute their changes back because in his words 'competition drives innovation'.

I pointed out that even if FreeBSD would want to compete with OSX on the desktop they would have no chance since Apple can take all of FreeBSD's improvements while keeping their own to themselves.

Reply Parent Score: 4