On Friday 20 Jun 2003 2:12 pm, JoeHill wrote: > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2136285,00.html > > Quote: > > "A UK IT industry body backed by Microsoft, IBM, Intel, BAE Systems and > other high-tech heavyweights has urged the UK government to show > restraint in its use of open-source software, particularly software > covered by the General Public License."
There's 1,000 companies in that body, all with a vested interest in royalties. IBM probably doesn't have much of a voice there. But I remember when IBM were the big bad guys, while MS were just riding on their coat-tails. IMHO, the GPL is becoming difficult. It's so complex it would take a lawyer to work out what it really means. When you screw your brain around it enough you find it will probably allow what you want to do, but it takes some mental strain and it isn't a sure thing. That makes it a hard sell to management types, and an easy pot-shot for the entrenched pundits. BSD is a lot simpler. Maybe we need a license with the effective meaning of the GPL, but which isn't weighed down with the philosophical baggage. It would be nice to have a 100% service oriented income-model across the board, but is it necessary, achievable or desirable? In the worst case, if Microsoft dropped IIS and distributed Apache with Windows would the Open-Source movement die? I don't think so. OK so MS could try to extend and destroy, but if we have proved that Open-Source is a better development model than proprietry, shouldn't we put our money where our mouths are? If and when the GPL is tested in court, I have less than 100% certainty that the precident will say what we want it to say. It's so complex an expensive lawyer could twist it somewhat. Anyway, (IMHO) GPL is probably not right for the UK gov. I would have thought public-domain would be a better fit. -- Richard Urwin
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
