On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: >> >> On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: >>> >>> It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to >>> LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't >>> IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in >>> existence? >> >> Did you not read my post in reply to you an hour ago? The answer is >> obvious. IBM is not an "Open Source" company but a proprietary software >> company. Those are two separate business models. That is like asking >> Microsoft why you can't have the source code for Windows. Expecting a >> Leopard to change into a Lion is simply not going to happen - at least not >> quickly. >> > > I did read it - but IBM has decided to happily contribute to the GPL'd > OpenJDK - so I don't believe it has to change any spots.
Here is another great example - and hopefully makes it obvious. Look at http://svnkit.com/licensing.html. For all the copyleft folks SVNKit is great. It is also great if you want to pay TMate money and ship your proprietary product. IBM can't do the first so it does the second. Not everyone who does dual licensing makes it so obvious but it happens all the time. I actually think it is kind of funny because it totally subverts the whole copyleft "freedoms". Ralph
