On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, bsd unix wrote:
- Thanks for your comments.
- > under this FSF, the main aim to not to make money. software should be
- > available to all along with source code so that developer can study, learn
- > add some more features to your components which u may not have in mind.
- > that's how linux kernel is developed.
- Indeed what you say is my conclusion too in my paper.
- This is the exact point which i'am also inferring after doing a lot of study.
- with GPL, you cannot make money.
- Though they say a lot of things, there is no clear proof that companies
- based on opensource have been able to generate revenues, contribute to
- the growth of the industry and generate employment for engineers.
RedHat/Mandrake not making money? Granted... Mandrake was in the red
sometime back but they are back on track now.
If you cannot make money, why are IBM/Novell moving to open source in such
a big way?
- Big companies have started to sink due to GPL.
Big companies have started to rise higher actually... And there is a
difference between opensource and the GPL.
- It's like a kind of dracula, don't mistake precisely that's the word we
- can use for GPL
Have you actually used this word in you paper? :)
- Here are some cases.
- (i) Sun Microsystems - initially tried to adopt GPL, later realised that it
didn't work out and started to pull out
- it's staroffice and made payable.
openoffice almost entirely funded by SUN. And staroffice is based on
Java Desktop System?? Their own distro?
- (ii) SCO - initially tried to be a Linux company by acquiring caldera, didn't
work out so pulled out.
Caldera acquired SCO! hehe... :)
Know your history!
- (iv) Mandrake became bankrupt.
And this is what you call research?