On 10/19/2011 10:07 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Phong Nguyen<[email protected]> wrote:
What does Microsoft gain by locking down a PC? Casual users are not going to
install alternative operating systems anyways. Technically proficient users
will only be encouraged to find ways to break the secure boot process (for a
real example, consoles, and the debacle over Sony's Playstation 3) - and that
is *not* in Microsoft's interest.
They gain DRM. This is critical to them and other companies that want
the software to run only how and when they want it to run, and the
data to be accessible only how and when they want to provide it. It's
understandable, but the GPL at the core of Linux releases and the core
features such as the kernel and glibc were designed to allow and
encourage open use and development.
We using Scientific Linux owe considerable thanks to our favorite
upstream vendor and their cooperation with these goals that allow us
this open use.
[snip]
Actually, we own considerable thanks to the GPL as well as the Linux
license that FORCES Red Hat (and other Linux environment vendors, but
not application vendors that run on Linux, such as Bibble or PDFStudio)
to release the full source code -- including any modifications as well
as the code used to build the full source or parts thereof. Although
each distribution source makes custom modifications into the actual
layout of files as well as the build process, because the full source is
available, it is possible to build the entire environment.
For Red Hat or any other for-profit entity to release the source were it
not required, there would have to be a profit reason -- including market
share. Thus, Sun bought the intellectual property of StarOffice,
evolved it into OpenOffice, and released the source while still
providing paid professional (not just volunteer) development and
maintenance staff/support. Why? Because Sun originally wanted Solaris
on technical workstations originally on Sparc CPUs (not IA-32) and had
to have something to work with MS Office suite files -- the format of
which was reverse engineered (in the USA, under the Quattro Pro vs.
Lotus 123 decision). This Oracle/Sun market share decision is one from
which the entire open systems community benefited.
Red Hat does benefit from CentOS, SL, etc., because the user base helps
debug the EL distribution in environments that otherwise might not be
reached through the licensed-for-fee RHEL licensees.
But -- I personally doubt it is the generosity or societal conscience of
Red Hat or any other for-profit business -- rather it is the legally
binding requirements of the GPL, etc. Profit-driven business decisions,
not altruism.
Yasha Karant
