Alan, It's not an assumption, and you cut out my qualifying statements. It absolutely does depend on your goals. For companies that want to embed an OS and not disclose their own source code (for whatever reason), the GPL is absolutely out of the question.
I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the GPL, and I do understand the protections it gives. I'm just saying that it's not the license for everybody, and in the case posited by the author of the article, it certainly is not. Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Cox Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Interesting? to those who are subject to SOX On Iau, 2006-01-19 at 14:20 -0500, Post, Mark K wrote: > he's absolutely right. The BSD style licenses are much more business > friendly than the GPL. Dangerous assumption. BSD licenses can be a lot less business friendly especially the older one. I worked for a certain networking appliance company that vetoed the use of NetBSD because of the credit rules it has - miss anyone out on anything and you might get sued. Others favour GPL because it stops someone taking your output and selling it back to you. Microsoft can't take IBM Linux contributions improve the and sell them back to IBM as they could with BSD. Some even use this to build a dual model - mysql, sleepycat etc. So it depends on your goals. Alan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
