Open-source board eyes fewer licenses

"Linux has never been about business"

devnet: That's your opinion. It has always been about business to me.

It's about whatever to whomever, typically -- to some people it's the ultimate desktop, some it's the ultimate mainframe os, some it's the best thing for embedded apps -- to say it's one thing (your thing) is not really a good idea.

When it comes to licensing, a lot of desktop end users really don't care, but businesses care.

I thought I scanned the article in question in one forum or another, but what struck me of paramount importance is the incompatibility of licenses.

Read that as: advances in one project most likely cannot be applied to another unrelated project due to the wording of the license. This should be seen this is a retarding factor to the advancement of F/OSS software.

That seems to outweigh the business interests that are being crabbed about here.

Paul,

Always? It's been about the business for all areas of your Linux experience? If so, congrats...you're one of the few. When I started with Linux in 1996 it wasn't about the business...it was about an alternative to Microsoft that was free and fun to use. Throw business in there for most of the common desktop users and you'll leave a sour taste in our mouths. Interestingly enough, an extremely high percentage of distros are geared toward the desktop for home use. That doesn't spell Linux being about the business. But perhaps there are those out there that have share your sentiment that Linux is about the business...who knows right?

TxTEdMacs,

Multiple licenses mean variety...similar to multiple distributions. When projects hit a wall because of interoperability problems...they just change to a different license...they aren't bound by anything. To me, I see more licenses as a sign that open source is growing. The more, the merrier. The only thing preventing projects from advancing through incompatibility of license is the project developers themselves...they can decide at any time to adopt a license or rewrite theirs. All it takes is concentration on forward development instead of making a buck.

devnet: okay, I'll admit that in 1993, when I first got a copy of Ygdrasil plug-and-play Linux (oh, what a misnomer that was, btw) loaded on a screaming 486DX33, I was playing around.

I almost immediately wanted it to be a part of my working experience, however. I'll admit, however, that most of my coworkers thought I was joking.

I haven't been at it as long as you have, Paul, not so much as logging into a linux box til 1996 or building my own until 1998. I am a babe in these woods.

However ...

I do know that the Linux box I started out using was a skunkworks development machine in a cross-platform (HP-UX, AIX, and DEC/OSF) Unix shop developing high-end business software.

While not about business a la Microsoft or Oracle, Linux has always been about business so far as getting things done. Fun to play with, incredibly useful to play with, especially when it's hard to get the budget approval for purchases.

It wasn't magic pixies dust that got folks like IBM and Oracle and Lucent and whomsoever else using and/or selling Linux. People began picking it up, sticking it places, depending on it. It's been that way nearly from the beginning.

Dean, probably both of us looked at Linux that way because:

A) Our Linux experiences were more "Unix-Like" -- we came from using Unix at work, and wishing we could use it at home (speaking more for myself now) -- then when I got it at home I realized it had things that Unix didn't have and I wanted it at work.

B) I don't know about you, but until I got Linux on my home PC I really couldn't do much in the way of what I would call "heavy lifting" -- multi-processing/multi-user type stuff. That was always a frustration with Windows -- it would do things that appeared to be heavy lifting, but in a pinch (especially the 2.0/3.0 Windows days), it fell apart like a house of cards.

C) We both (speaking from what I know about you personally) love what we do from a technical standpoint at work. I know a lot of people approach technology as a job and they don't find the joy. I do, seriously, find a lot of creativity at work, and especially with Linux and Unix-like things. I'm kind of on the wierd side that way, I know. It's not everyone that cries the first time they get Linux to boot up (out of joy, no less).

*sigh*

Don't make the mistake of thinking that "business" is a term with a precise definition. Though it is a convenient shorthand, usually with negative connotations. Businesses are run by people, and express the values of the people running them. It's also a mistake to assume that all businesspeople are smart. They're not- a lot of them are the same obnoxious assholes we beat up in grade school just for being intolerably annoying. They're successful only because they are pushy and persistent, and made their way into the correct circles via birth or college. But for some reason silly ideas like "a business would not do that, not if it weren't a smart move" get lodged in people's heads. Businesspeople make idiotic decisions every day.

But it's not all negative. The good guys don't get a lot of attention, because good guys never do. I'm too lazy to look them up now, but all manner of businesses have been funding and supporting F/OSS projects from the very earliest days.

So, whatever this has to do with anything, there it is. :)

Is true, Chickie (if I may call you Chickie. Is infinitely preferable to Smelly Piece of Wombat Excrement).

In the end, business is Yet Another Human Endeavor.

Some good, some bad.

And, hey, we gotta pay the bills.

Just don't call me late for dinner. ;)

How about paying for dinner? TakesCheck?

-or-

Dressy for dinner? TuxedoChick?

-or-

Redneck linux gal: TuxCrick?

-or-

Into a different kind of birds? DucksChick?

-or-

Wildly successful? BucksChick?

-or-

Into serial communications? MuxChick?

-or-

The gambler? LucksChick?

Lemme know Tuxxy, I wouldn't want to call you by the wrong name :-)

Or how about drinking too much coffee early in the morning and posting annoying replies to LXer threads? AnnoyingFerris? FerriCaffeine? LatteCyde?

-Tool

I think it may be close to "Doubleshot" of expressoCyde...

SeanConnMan404: Listen tool, what makes you think you can just go onto a message board and make fun of someones name?!?!

How rude.

Damn boys It's one girl and you guys are fawning all over her.

What's scary is that your "mostly" grown men.

Now Tuxchick I would say slap them down but they might enjoy that, so continue what you are doing and ignore them. That or tease them until they become so stupid they must use Windows again.

Peragrin, I took a vow to not abuse my awesome feminine wiles. "With great power comes great responsibility." Anyway I'm certain it is my awesome intelligence that is shining through, and captivating yet more admirers. It's a curse, but somehow I live with it.

tuxchick: don't forget your self-defacing humility too!

Ferris, you TOOL! You made fun of MY name? Tread lightly, else more SNL references will find their way into your threads!

-The ORIGINAL Tool

P.S. I heard there might have been some "hidden extras" in one of your articles recently, but haven't been able to find. Any idea what I'm talking about?

Sean if you read his articles closely look for the following letters

I L O V E M I C R O S O F T

So you can see where he really stands

sean: alas, I removed the comments from that article. It was an artifact of creation and a joke that only a few would understand ;) I'll email it to you.

--Paul

Thanks for that insight, peragrin! I nearly missed out that Ferris was actually a MS spy trying to sway me to use Windows and IE so he can write malware and infect my PC! Darn him!!!

Still waiting on the email, Ferris! I think more people caught it than you realize - the source that I heard it from was someone you probably wouldn't have suspected. Be careful - it's like I always said when I "worked" there; the walls have teeth ;-)

-Tool