Open Source, Innovation, and IP
| Email weblog link | ||
| Blog this |
Nat Torkington
Feb. 08, 2005 09:13 PM
Permalink
![]()
URL: http://www.ftponline.com/conferences/vslive/2005/sf/keynotes.aspx...
Wish me luck! On Wednesday at 2pm Pacific time, I'll be the open source guy on a panel on "Innovation and Intellectual Property". It's part of the VSLive conference, and there'll be 4,000 Windows programmers in attendance. Let's see how many GPL converts I can make in an hour :-). I'll post again after the panel and let you know how it went.Nat Torkington is conference planner for the Open Source Convention, OSCON Europe, and other O'Reilly conferences. He was project manager for Perl 6, is on the board of The Perl Foundation, and is a frequent speaker on open source topics. He cowrote the bestselling Perl Cookbook.
Showing messages 1 through 5 of 5.
-
goodluck
2005-02-09 07:57:04 breskeby [View]
greets brs
-
why GPL?
2005-02-09 04:27:36 jwenting [View]
GPL is destructive. If you were talking more rational licensing schemes like the APL you might have some success.
I'd never use any GPL code, as I am diametrically opposed to the license forcing me into using it for my own code.
I do use APL code and have contributed some under it, might do more in the future. -
Re: why GPL?
2005-02-09 09:59:48 Nat Torkington |
[View]
I've been thinking about the GPL lately, and whether its tough line on derivatives has been what's made it possible for Linux to become the common platform for competing vendors like HP, IBM, RedHat, etc. A more permissive license, it seems to me, would have let companies keep bits of their contributions closed source as a proprietary edge. I think that strategy wouldn't work in the long term, but the GPL rules it out entirely--it compels good citizenship rather than simply expecting it.
That's not to say that other licences (APL, Mozilla, BSD, whatever) aren't good--anything that opens source for others to use is good. I'm just coming to think that perhaps the GPL is a sharp edge, and that there are times when we need sharp blades. There are also times when we don't need sharp blades; I'm not saying the GPL is a universal good, only that it seems to have unique benefits in particular situations.
--Nat -
Re: why GPL?
2005-02-10 00:18:42 jwenting [View]
Those companies don't extend or use those GPL'd products in their own products (at least not at the scale you seem to think).
They may sell Linux distributions, but their own versions with large amounts of custom (non-GPL, often not OS) products added in.
GPL effectively makes it impossible to ever make a dime of your work, except if you happen to be lucky enough to get a support contract (instead of the person downloading it for free just downloading it for free and asking his hacker friend to help him).
GPL isn't a sharp blade, it's a blunt axe.
-
Good!
2005-02-09 02:55:48 aristotle [View]
Luck!
(Why do I have to provide a subject just to say “good luck?”)
| Showing messages 1 through 5 of 5. |
Return to weblogs.oreilly.com.
Weblog authors are solely responsible for the content and accuracy of their weblogs, including opinions they express, and O'Reilly Media, Inc., disclaims any and all liabililty for that content, its accuracy, and opinions it may contain.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.







