A Philosophical Proposal
Hello all,
I've been a linux user for a few years now, actively enjoying all that distros such as Debian, PCLOS, DSL, KnoppMyth, and TTYLinux have to offer. I've got a question to pose to you all, that's related to the concept of the GNU General Public License.
The GNU General Public License can be read here. Some of the things licensed under GPL include the Linux kernel, along with the GNU components of a linux operating system.
The issue that I personally have with this license is that it requires that any derivative works to be licensed under GPL as well. The upshot of this means that commercial work based off of GPL software cannot be used in a proprietary sense. While companies can offer support for their own linux-based operating system, they have no legal recourse against anyone who chooses to distribute their version to whomever they want.
Now, to me, this seems like a foolish idea. Something like the MIT license can allow anyone to use and develop software, but that derivative works can be licensed under whatever the derivative's developer chooses. What this means is that a corporation can invest money into developing a linux distribution that could greatly advance the unix community and sell that distribution as a major competing operating system to Windows and Mac OS.
With GPL, because there's absolutely no money in further development, there's much less of a motivation to develop on top of the linux platform, no?
Could it be that we're all betting on the wrong horse? Do we need to build a new operating system from the ground up?
I've been a linux user for a few years now, actively enjoying all that distros such as Debian, PCLOS, DSL, KnoppMyth, and TTYLinux have to offer. I've got a question to pose to you all, that's related to the concept of the GNU General Public License.
The GNU General Public License can be read here. Some of the things licensed under GPL include the Linux kernel, along with the GNU components of a linux operating system.
The issue that I personally have with this license is that it requires that any derivative works to be licensed under GPL as well. The upshot of this means that commercial work based off of GPL software cannot be used in a proprietary sense. While companies can offer support for their own linux-based operating system, they have no legal recourse against anyone who chooses to distribute their version to whomever they want.
Now, to me, this seems like a foolish idea. Something like the MIT license can allow anyone to use and develop software, but that derivative works can be licensed under whatever the derivative's developer chooses. What this means is that a corporation can invest money into developing a linux distribution that could greatly advance the unix community and sell that distribution as a major competing operating system to Windows and Mac OS.
With GPL, because there's absolutely no money in further development, there's much less of a motivation to develop on top of the linux platform, no?
Could it be that we're all betting on the wrong horse? Do we need to build a new operating system from the ground up?
