On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Michael O'Keefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But the jewels of Google's crown are most assuredly "closed source" !
The argument was that the GPL discourages companies from producing GPLd software. Google happily produces GPLd software, and they profit by doing so. > And Red Hat's profits aren't from their source code Yeah! That's a funny one. They may as well just stop coding, because it ain't gettin' them anywhere! They'd still make money without any of this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions. > Nor is IBM or Sun. Both of them have "side projects" under the F/OSS > banner, but they don't put their company at "risk" with F/OSS. That's not the argument. If you want to argue that a company existing solely to sell GPLd code won't get far, I'll agree. But there are a million other ways to write GPLd code and profit from it. There is ample evidence of this. Enough evidence that you're not going to win this argument. -todd -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
