> In order to make a deal. In exchange for that concession, we would
> require IBM to free up some specific chunk of their software.
IMHO this is a crappy reasoning. GPL is not to be exchanged.
> It's basic barter. IBM would like it if we simply donated the copyrights
> to our software to IBM and let them write the licenses. We would
> like it if IBM simply put all its source code under GPL immediately.
> Neither side benefits from unilaterally *giving* things to the other side.
> But both sides can benefit from an exchange.
No. GPL is the way we protect our software and it is not to be changed ...
for nothing. If IBM think that GPL don't suit their needs, simply
they don't use GPL'd software. I don't want to write software under an IBM
license.
> IBM wants to sell a version of Linux where everybody out there can do
> what you and I and the other people here are doing now: read the source
> code, play with it, learn from it, make our own patches, distribute our
> patches to anyone who wants them, send our patches to Alan and Linus
> for their consideration. As long as IBM Linux covers these things,
> I won't feel exploited if the owners of the Linux copyright or the FSF
> issue a new license to suit IBM's desire to protect their patents.
> And I will feel benefitted if it's part of a deal where IBM frees
> up some of their commercial software.
No. _I_ will feel exploited if a version of linux kernel will be put on a
different license that GPL. The problem here is that if you change license
and give IBM the way of have an IBM/Linux kernel, I can predict that soon
we will have two different kernel trees: GNU/Linux and IBM/Linux.
No thanks. If they want to protect their patents, they have to deal with
GPL in some way, nothing more and nothing less.
And about IBM releasing sources of their commercial software in exchange,
I am not convinced that this will be a great deal.
PS: and I don't think Linux kernel is going to change its license only to
suit IBM needs. This will become a precedent that hardly Linux
developers will want to establish. And then what ? M$ asks us to give
them Linux sources under a modified license ? How can you deny this ?
For IBM you've done it and for M$ no ? Are you trying to boicott M$
market ? Do you want to have something to do with M$ lawyers ? (M$ is
only an example here of course ... it can well be any big company out
there)
Ciao,
Riccardo.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/