Carl that is interesting and not very surprising. My experience with trying to explain the main issues with the acceptance of Linux is that most people don't understand. - They don't understand what an operating system is - they don't know what source code is - Understanding how the GPL can affect their concept of "intellectual property"... well forget it.
Unless you're talking to an I.T. specialist rag which has reporters and editors that know the difference between source code and Morse code you're probably going to be fighting a very difficult battle. The fact that Linux is "free" and not Microsoft is probably a good enough starting point in most peoples minds. Regards, Zane On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 12:18, Carl Klitscher wrote: > > I am still lurking, although a day late responding... I have to admit that > the end of the article didn't make sense to me either. It may have been > trimmed to fit by a subeditor... > Anyway, the original question in the interview was centered around the > risk of potential loss of intellectual property by developing commercial > programs for use in an Open Source environment. I cited the examples of > DB2, Lotus, Websphere etc. as licensed commercial applications from IBM > that have been ported to and can coexist with Linux which is licensed under > the GPL, therefore the 'risk' can be managed. > > Not sure if that clarifies anything but there you go. > > Carl > > -- _____________________________________________________ Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.:- A.C.Clark _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________
