Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Red Hat Software Inc. (Nasdq-RHAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric Wells who wrote (1137)	9/10/1999 12:11:00 AM
From: Mitch Blevins	Respond to of 1794

Another way to make money off Linux would to be offer some version of Linux with specialized functionality that no one else is offering. This could be done if a group of Linux developers creates a version of Linux and keeps it proprietary - that is they don't share their code with anyone else. I agree with most of what you are saying. However, your above scenario has a big logistical hurdle to overcome... this group of developers would have to throw away the 8 years of work already done on the kernel and start from scratch. (I am assuming that you are talking about kernel development) The license of Linux specifically requires that any modified version of it that is distributed retain the same license, which means that modified versions cannot be kept proprietary. Even Linus could not pull such a stunt because large portions of the kernel have their copyright held by other developers. All developers (over 1000) would have to agree together to use the existing kernel as a base for a future proprietary version, which seems unlikely. You can read the full text of the license here: gnu.org -Mitch

To: Eric Wells who wrote (1137)	9/10/1999 5:09:00 AM
From: Niels Larsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1794

Another way to make money off Linux would to be offer some version of Linux with specialized functionality that no one else is offering. This could be done if a group of Linux developers creates a version of Linux and keeps it proprietary - that is they don't share their code with anyone else. This wouldnt work if it stands up in court, because this is what the GPL license (which Linux kernel is distributed under) was created to prevent. The reason it will not fragment, is that it can never be made proprietary: when someone makes an addition, it must be made available with source code under the GPL as well. This, I think, is why some feel GPL is "infective". But I am happy this is so, because only software is free that can never be made non-free. It is through keeping technology proprietary that a business can hope to maximize a revenue stream. The past shows its by getting marketshare, so that business based on a free kernel gets to ride the tails. Or put differently, whenever any enabling technology becomes widely available, new businesses will spring up that didnt exist before. This is what keeps the economy alive, isnt it. Your talk about money driving things, thats what most think in USA. Most free software is written by those who likes to be creative, recognized/respected, educated, proud of what they do. Thats how Linux kernel became fast and stable, for example. And when most common applications become available with sources then businesses will see that it is cheaper to contract with the developers (or someone who understands its workings) to make a customized version than it would be to get programmers to write the whole program from scratch or get a source license from a proprietary place. Most of these additions will end up as patches/improvements to the distribution. And so it gains. The main point is, it doesnt matter than some software firms go out of business (because they are slow to adjust) if much more new opportunity is the result. For example, free software will spread quickly through non-industrialized countries and the payoff will be huge. If they had been served by software companies "trying to maximize their revenue stream", then this would have happened slowly and/or by illegal bootlegging.

To: Eric Wells who wrote (1137)	9/13/1999 7:20:00 PM
From: Dragonfly	Respond to of 1794

Eric- MSFT is listed as your "Favorite stock" You take all the pro-microsoft positions without question and disagree with the pro-linux positions because they don't "fit your experience." Well, that's not surprising when your experience is limited to a specific way of doing business. Your responses to my statements have not inspired me to participate further, as you don't show an understanding for the points I am making, and this feels like talking to any one of the MS Millionaires. I work in redmond. I am well aware of the reality distortion field that MSFT puts out. Its like trying to explain evolution to a fundamentalist christian. Dragonfly