Here is an interesting question in light of all that's happened so far with Linux, IBM, SCO, and the GPL fud.
Why is Linux so big? Why did IBM choose to invest billions in Linux, rather than some other free OS, such as FreeBSD, or even OpenBSD. All things being equal, there is no obvious benefit of one over the other. Some say hardware support make Linux great. But if IBM had wanted to, they could have made the BSD kernel just as good. Furthermore, since BSD is already a derivative of the ancient unix code base (already legally freed from AT&T, and hence SCO), and may even have been a more logical choice for replacing aging proprietary OS's. The thing that I find fascinating is that IBM's recent actions on the SCO case indicate exactly what IBM feels makes Linux not only great, but makes it possible for them to invest billions in Linux (a free operating system) and make a return on it. It's all about the GPL. The GPL is the reason IBM and many others are investing billions in Linux. Without the GPL, Linux would have just been another has-been free OS. In fact one could even argue that FreeBSD and OpenBSD's usage and development is falling behind linux precisely because Linux is GPL and the BSD's are not. Why is this so? The GPL is appealing to IBM because it appeals to their hard-nosed business sense. One way to understand this would be to imagine IBM had decided to invest billions in FreeBSD. Consider the BSD license IBM would have to work with. Because of that license IBM would essentially be building up an OS only to have it stolen by other competitors, such as Microsoft, or SCO. IBM was one of the first companies to realize that the GPL allowed them to build an OS they would benefit from (and others too), but that their contributions and investment could never be taken by a company like Microsoft and closed up and milked. Instead, competitors could take IBM's code and use it, and even extend it, but anything they did would also be accessible back to IBM. Thus everyone is forced to stay on a level playing field. IBM has recognized how to work with the GPL to it's advantage, while cultivating that important relationship with developers and GPL end-users. SCO, on the other hand, failed to understand how it worked (greed got in the way), and so now they are screaming fowl precisely because they cannot steal IBM's code since the GPL protects it. It's sad, really. SCO could have been like IBM and used the GPL to their advantage. Now the GPL will prove their undoing. As someone else said, when the smoke clears and the dust settles, SCO will mostly likely be found to have GPL'd code stolen (contaminated) and placed in almost all of their products. If they wanted to work with the rules, that would have been fine. But they have chosen the other route. This leads me to my final (somewhat unrelated) point. Before the widespread use of the GPL and the rise of Linux (and quality GPL software), I believe that code theft has been rampant in the industry. Finding stolen code is nigh unto impossible after it's compiled. Companies producing software under the GPL are forced to be much more honest, since their code is open, which is a good thing, and this makes IBM look really good and makes SCO look really bad. In fact, SCO's insane fight against the GPL itself is probable cause in my mind that they have not been honest and are now trying to rationalize their theft. Some day I am very curious to see how much GPL'd code has been stolen by Microsoft. Should be interesting indeed. -- Michael Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
