From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 29 May 2002 15:49:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 29 May 2002 15:49:07 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-039-142.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.39.142]:49841 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 29 May 2002 15:49:06 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: "Rose, Billy" , "'Alan Cox'" , Roman Zippel , "'Karim Yaghmour'" Subject: Re: A reply on the RTLinux discussion. Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 21:46:46 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4188788C3E1BD411AA60009027E92DFD0962E2F2@loisexc2.loislaw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 29 May 2002 14:36, Rose, Billy wrote: > > The > > patent grant says it can be used for GPL software. As a free software > > author I have no problems at all with Victor's patent. If I want to do > > proprietary software well shucks, I'm going to have to play by the > > proprietary rules. I don't see that anti free software. It > > might be anti > > how convenient I can mix the two and flog it for lots of money, but > > thats not free software anyway. > ... > > Enough said. Business is business, bottom line. Coding in open source > is artwork. These guys building this kernel are artists. Those guys > selling stuff are business people. So, you want to use my artwork for > money? Fine, then pay me to let someone have the privilege. Want to > help me paint parts of the memory handling? Fine, here's a paint brush > all your own... totally free. These are fine-sounding words, but this is not the intent of, for example, the GPL, which intentionally accomodates the needs of commerce. If it didn't - i.e., no provision for closed apps on the GPL operating system - you can be sure that Linux would not have grown as it has. What we're really discussing is whether we're willing to allow patent restrictions to inhibit the growth of Linux in new areas that go beyond its traditional IT role, and further, whether we're willing to accept such restrictions from people or companies that depend on Linux for their sustenance, and who have benefitted from the lack of such restrictions as they wish to impose on others. -- Daniel