[LUAU] Thoughts...

[bbraun at sparcy.synack.net]

On Wednesday, Mar 1999 at 10:26:2 Jimen Ching wrote: 
 | 
 | As for big business doing a Linux fork, this will only happen if there is
 | no cooperation between the kernel developers and the commercial company.  
 | I don't think this will happen.  Of course, I'm assuming that development
 | paths like RTLinux, MKlinux, i8086 Linux, are _not_ forks.  If you have a
 | different definition, then all bets are off.

 I don't know much about forks, but Linus is such an arrogant bastard
 I don't think he'd let any forks take place.  He already shut down
 the parallel development trees at vger and david miller's tree.

 Specialty forks are another issue.  ELKS (8086 linux) has almost
 no linux left in it.  Any defining features of linux have been removed.
 At this point, they could have just as easily taken BSD code and
 stripped stuff out...  MkLinux is less drastic but still is
 heavily modified code on the bottom half.

 A code fork is usually when there are changes made to a code base,
 those changes are maintained and expanded without being merged back
 into the "main" distribution.  All of the examples you listed above
 fit this category to various degrees.

 The commercial forking idea is being tested now by Mosix which has
 a binary module being loaded into a linux kernel that must be modified.
 This is a very simplistic and perhaps not even a fork, but if they
 can do this, there is very little reason why a commercial fork can't
 take place.

 | As for the GPL vs. BSD debate, let me submit an excercise.  Think about
 | how you want to view software.  For me, I view software like doctors view
 | surgical techniques.  I would not want to live in a world were a doctor
 | can patent/license a new heart surgery technique.  For doctors, this
 | knowledge is shared, ie. taught by the doctor who developed it.  She is
 | paid well to travel the world and show other doctors how to perform this
 | procedure.

 According to the law, software is purely functional.  It is not protected
 by free speech.  Source is not a means of communicating.  In this view,
 the source is the act of performing the surgery, the service rendered.
 Not the procedure its self.  Not that I agree with this, but this is the
 way the US government says it is.

 | If you look at any _professional_ society, you'll see that this type of
 | knowledge is treated the same, ie. lawyers, architects, engineers, etc.  
 | As a computer _professional_ I too have this view, except, instead of
 | knowledge of a technique or procedure, I have this view of software.  If
 | this is the type of view you have of software, then the GPL is the best
 | means to achieve this ideal in the _real world_.  If you can think of a
 | better way to achieve this ideal, then please let us all know about it,
 | especially RMS and ESR.

 Actually, there is a slight difference between the GPL and your example.
 In your example, I have the right to refuse to tell someone about my
 proceedure, selectivly.  Under the GPL I must tell everyone.  The
 individual doctors can fly to my house and demand that I show them the
 proceedure, and I have to.  Same for derivative works.

 | As for the so called _moral_ issue.  I don't know how RMS picked that out
 | of the air.  This is not a moral issue.  There's nothing wrong with
 | believing that you have the right to own knowledge.  But don't expect
 | everyone to abide by your rules.

 This last statement violates the gpl.

 Rob
--
     __   __  __________  __
    / /  / / / / __  / / / /  Home Page: http://luau.hi.net
   / /__/ /_/ / /_/ / /_/ /
  /____/\____/_/ /_/\____/  LUAU - Linux Users Anonymous - Hawaii

   To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe luau | mail majordomo at luau.hi.net