On 12/28/10 11:01, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
On 12/28/10 02:20 AM, Edward Martinez wrote:
Since nobody owns opensoure
All actual open source software has a copyright owner, so that claim
is false by definition. If there was no copyright owner, it would be
"public domain", not "open source."
This is what allows entities like the FSF to file lawsuits when the
terms of their open source licenses are not followed.
now it appears they are about to fork the linux kernel
I think you need to check your facts more - look who are in the top ten
corporate contributors to the upstream Linux kernel and you'll see Oracle:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/docs/lf_linux_kernel_development_2010.pdf
The "Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel" forks the kernel RPM's from the Red Hat
ones previously used in Oracle Enterprise Linux, but is still the GPL-licensed
Linux kernel, and is in fact closer to the upstream than before.
There's plenty of actual things to complain about Oracle doing without making
up new false ones.
Hi Alan,
I I got the "no body owns opensource" bit from one of Larry's
interviews he conducted
a while back:
FT: Is open source going to be disruptive to Oracle?
LE: No. If an open source product gets good enough, we'll simply
take it.
Take the web server software] Apache: once Apache got better
than our own web server, we threw it away and took Apache.
So the great thing about open source is nobody owns it – a
company like Oracle is free to take it for nothing, include it in our
products and charge for support
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto041820061306424713
I never mentioned about changing licenses of the linux kernel. I
was implying that Oracle was releasing a different one then what comes
as default in redhat's
linux.
Regards
Edward
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
