> 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.
That's a valid point of view: no trades, no exchanges. IBM does its thing,
we do ours. Personally I disagree and I think we can improve the quantity
of free software in the world by doing deals like this. But I respect
your right to license, or *not* license, your copyrighted word on any
terms you choose.
IBM is not saying "we want a BSD-like license where we can hoard our
enhancements." They just don't want to lose our patents in other products
if they write linux kernel code and give it away.
> 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.
IBM is not looking for a license that permits them to hoard their code.
They are looking for accommodation so that they can distribute Linux but
not surrrender all their patenent rights everywhere.
Of course this accommodation is a cost for Linux, not a benefit.
The point is to trade it for something that *is* a benefit to Linux.
For example, suppose we ask IBM to release the MCA bus as free
intellectual property as their part of the deal. Or the source code
for Deep Blue plus the ASIC layouts for the custom chips.
> And then what ? M$ asks us to give them Linux sources under a modified
> license ? How can you deny this ?
You can offer them the same terms as you offered IBM. So obviously,
the terms have to be something that you can live with if everyone wants
to do the same deal.
Michael Elizabeth Chastain
<mailto:mec@shout.net>
"love without fear"
-
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/