Antimoney or antifreedom?
- Article 2 of 16
- LinuxUser & Developer, February 2004
Is the community really against corporations making money from Linux? Or is it simply against companies that try to restrict users' freedom?
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | All 3 Pages
Blepp says the company’s last recourse is the courts; in preference, it would naturally prefer to agree a licensing fee for the intellectual property it claims has been appropriated.
While few analysts or lawyers see it gaining much headway, there is the potential for SCO to cause a major headache for Linux. The GPL will receive its first real scrutiny in the courts if the case goes to trial. Even if SCO fails, it is possible for the GPL to be shown as invalid. And then anything released under the GPL would be open for appropriation by firms all eager to grab the technology and any advantages it might offer. If SCO succeeds, then Red Hat will not be the only company requiring every single computer running Linux to be licensed for a fee.
In contrast to many people’s beliefs, most of those working on free or open source Linux-based projects are not anti-business. They do, however, firmly believe in freedom from vendor lock-in. As long as vendors play by the community’s rules, they are safe. Transgress, and they’ll find themselves ostracised or chased out of town.
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | All 3 Pages