IBM makes Billions on Linux

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thing2, Mar 15, 2006.

  1. thing2

    impossible Guest

    "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:35:46 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >
    >> The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    >> "derived"
    >> from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications are not
    >> considered
    >> derived works, and so these can be made completely proprietary.

    >
    > Not so if they too have been released under the GPL.
    >


    Point me to the link for one of the non-trivial applications that IBM
    has developed in the past year that has been released under the GPL.
     
    impossible, Mar 19, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:57:00 -0500, impossible wrote:

    >>> The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    >>> "derived" from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications are not
    >>> considered derived works, and so these can be made completely
    >>> proprietary.

    >>
    >> Not so if they too have been released under the GPL.

    >
    > Point me to the link for one of the non-trivial applications that IBM
    > has developed in the past year that has been released under the GPL.


    But who has been discussing IBM's proprietary software?

    We have been discussing GNU/Linux - and that is all GPL'd.

    What software has IBM written and released on the Linux platform that is
    proprietary?


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 19, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. thing2

    shannon Guest

    On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:57:00 -0500, impossible wrote:

    > "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:35:46 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >>
    >>> The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    >>> "derived"
    >>> from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications are not
    >>> considered
    >>> derived works, and so these can be made completely proprietary.

    >>
    >> Not so if they too have been released under the GPL.
    >>

    >
    > Point me to the link for one of the non-trivial applications that IBM
    > has developed in the past year that has been released under the GPL.


    Isn't that what the SCO case was all about ?
     
    shannon, Mar 19, 2006
    #23
  4. thing2

    impossible Guest

    "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:57:00 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >
    >>>> The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    >>>> "derived" from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications are
    >>>> not
    >>>> considered derived works, and so these can be made completely
    >>>> proprietary.
    >>>
    >>> Not so if they too have been released under the GPL.

    >>
    >> Point me to the link for one of the non-trivial applications that
    >> IBM
    >> has developed in the past year that has been released under the
    >> GPL.

    >
    > But who has been discussing IBM's proprietary software?


    Duh! Software "released under the GPL" would not be proprietary. Would
    it? So tell me where I can go to avail myself of all the open-source
    applications that you seem to think IBM is in the business of
    producing.
     
    impossible, Mar 19, 2006
    #24
  5. thing2

    impossible Guest

    "shannon" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:57:00 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    >> news:p...
    >>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:35:46 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    >>>> "derived"
    >>>> from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications are not
    >>>> considered
    >>>> derived works, and so these can be made completely proprietary.
    >>>
    >>> Not so if they too have been released under the GPL.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Point me to the link for one of the non-trivial applications that
    >> IBM
    >> has developed in the past year that has been released under the
    >> GPL.

    >
    > Isn't that what the SCO case was all about ?
    >


    The SCO case was about the OS. I'm talking about applications and
    systems, which is what IBM makes its money developing.
     
    impossible, Mar 19, 2006
    #25
  6. thing2

    shannon Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "shannon" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >
    >>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:57:00 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:p...
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:35:46 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    >>>>>"derived"
    >>>>>from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications are not
    >>>>>considered
    >>>>>derived works, and so these can be made completely proprietary.
    >>>>
    >>>>Not so if they too have been released under the GPL.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Point me to the link for one of the non-trivial applications that
    >>>IBM
    >>>has developed in the past year that has been released under the
    >>>GPL.

    >>
    >>Isn't that what the SCO case was all about ?
    >>

    >
    >
    > The SCO case was about the OS. I'm talking about applications and
    > systems, which is what IBM makes its money developing.
    >
    >


    Just hairsplitting, but there is eclipse and the eclipse voicetools etc.
    The voice code in apache comes from ibm. They donated half a million
    lines of code to apache recently. The head developer of samba also works
    for IBM. There is probably a lot more, after all IBM are keen on Linux
    being a quality tool for the services business where they make their big
    bucks.
     
    shannon, Mar 19, 2006
    #26
  7. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:33:21 +1200, shannon wrote:

    >> Point me to the link for one of the non-trivial applications that IBM
    >> has developed in the past year that has been released under the GPL.

    >
    > Isn't that what the SCO case was all about ?


    No - not at all.

    The Caldera/NewSCO cases against IBM, Novell, Autozone, RedHat, and
    DamlerChrisler are all about NewSCO generating anti-Linux FUD. That is all.

    Novell owns the copyrights to Unix, not NewSCO.

    And besides, even *IF* NewSCO owned those copyrights (which it doesn't)
    IBM has not put any proprietary Sys V Unix code into Linux, and so far
    NewSCO has not been able to point to any specific code that it claims is
    infringing its alleged copyrights (which in any case it does not have).

    All Linux development is done in full view of anybody and everybody who
    wishes to keep an eye on it. If there is any infringing code, SCO would be
    able to publically point to it and require its immediate removal.

    And besides, NewSCO was invited by Linux developers to specify what the
    offending code (if any) there was so that it could be immediately taken
    out. NewSCO refused to specify which code was infringing.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    Mary Ann Fisher: "Governments worldwide are spending more than US$3 billion
    a year on Linux hardware, software and services, and this is growing at 35%
    a year, but it’s the US military that is spending the most. They view it as
    a source of innovation."
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 19, 2006
    #27
  8. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:52:44 -0500, impossible wrote:

    > "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:57:00 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    >>>>> "derived" from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications are
    >>>>> not
    >>>>> considered derived works, and so these can be made completely
    >>>>> proprietary.
    >>>>
    >>>> Not so if they too have been released under the GPL.
    >>>
    >>> Point me to the link for one of the non-trivial applications that
    >>> IBM
    >>> has developed in the past year that has been released under the
    >>> GPL.

    >>
    >> But who has been discussing IBM's proprietary software?

    >
    > Duh! Software "released under the GPL" would not be proprietary. Would
    > it? So tell me where I can go to avail myself of all the open-source
    > applications that you seem to think IBM is in the business of
    > producing.


    I think you're barking up the wrong tree, mate.

    IBM has made substantial contributions to Linux kernel development.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 19, 2006
    #28
  9. thing2

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <>,
    "impossible" <> wrote:
    >
    >Duh! Software "released under the GPL" would not be proprietary. Would
    >it? So tell me where I can go to avail myself of all the open-source
    >applications that you seem to think IBM is in the business of
    >producing.


    Object REXX. Originally developed (and sold) by IBM as a proprietary
    product, and recently released as an Open Source product. There are others,
    I just remember this one because I use it.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
     
    Don Hills, Mar 19, 2006
    #29
  10. thing2

    s.t.e.v.e. Guest

    impossible wrote:

    > The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules "derived"
    > from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications are not considered
    > derived works, and so these can be made completely proprietary. If
    > that weren't the case, neither IBM nor any any other for-profit
    > developer would have the slighest interest. The source code for
    > software that simply *runs on* Linux and calls its kernel functions
    > does not have to be shared with anyone other than the author/owner.


    If it contains any GPL-protected code from any other person and they want to
    sell it, you'd be wrong.

    If they GPL the driver / app / whatever.......they can't take it back.

    So while there is some truth in what you say, the reality is that most of
    Linux (including drivers, apps, and many other things) IS protected by the
    GPL can could not be easily made proprietary as the source up to that point
    would be freely available and could be developed and extended by anyone.
     
    s.t.e.v.e., Mar 19, 2006
    #30
  11. thing2

    s.t.e.v.e. Guest

    impossible wrote:

    > "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:35:46 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >>
    >>> The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    >>> "derived"
    >>> from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications are not
    >>> considered
    >>> derived works, and so these can be made completely proprietary.

    >>
    >> Not so if they too have been released under the GPL.

    >
    > Point me to the link for one of the non-trivial applications that IBM
    > has developed in the past year that has been released under the GPL.


    We were talking about Linux.....not IBM's applications for Linux.
     
    s.t.e.v.e., Mar 19, 2006
    #31
  12. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 20:59:38 +1200, s.t.e.v.e. wrote:

    > If they GPL the driver / app / whatever.......they can't take it back.


    It is true that any GPL'd software will remain forever Free under the GPL.

    However, it is possible for the original copyright holder to release
    software under more than one licence - to dual licence software.

    IIRC an example of this is MySQL - released under both the GPL and a
    commercial licence.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    One Unix to rule them all,
    One Resolver to find them,
    One IP to bring them all
    And in the Zone to Bind them.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 19, 2006
    #32
  13. thing2

    impossible Guest

    "Don Hills" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>Duh! Software "released under the GPL" would not be proprietary.
    >>Would
    >>it? So tell me where I can go to avail myself of all the open-source
    >>applications that you seem to think IBM is in the business of
    >>producing.

    >
    > Object REXX. Originally developed (and sold) by IBM as a proprietary
    > product, and recently released as an Open Source product. There are
    > others,
    > I just remember this one because I use it.
    >
    >


    Object REXX was developed by IBM about 10-12 years ago for the OS2
    platform. That and a lot of other defunct software was recently dumped
    by IBM into the open-source community -- if you actually use Object
    REXX now, that's nice, but you'd be one of the very few who ever
    thought it was a bargain even when previously released as freeware.
     
    impossible, Mar 19, 2006
    #33
  14. thing2

    impossible Guest

    "s.t.e.v.e." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    >> news:p...
    >>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:35:46 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    >>>> "derived"
    >>>> from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications are not
    >>>> considered
    >>>> derived works, and so these can be made completely proprietary.
    >>>
    >>> Not so if they too have been released under the GPL.

    >>
    >> Point me to the link for one of the non-trivial applications that
    >> IBM
    >> has developed in the past year that has been released under the
    >> GPL.

    >
    > We were talking about Linux.....not IBM's applications for Linux.
    >
    >


    Read the subject line for this thread -- we were talking about IBM and
    where it makes its money.
     
    impossible, Mar 19, 2006
    #34
  15. thing2

    impossible Guest

    "s.t.e.v.e." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >> The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    >> "derived"
    >> from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications are not
    >> considered
    >> derived works, and so these can be made completely proprietary. If
    >> that weren't the case, neither IBM nor any any other for-profit
    >> developer would have the slighest interest. The source code for
    >> software that simply *runs on* Linux and calls its kernel functions
    >> does not have to be shared with anyone other than the author/owner.

    >
    > If it contains any GPL-protected code from any other person and they
    > want to
    > sell it, you'd be wrong.


    You're talking in circles. GPL-protected code is code "derived" from
    the Linux kernel. No more, no less.

    >
    > If they GPL the driver / app / whatever.......they can't take it
    > back.


    Of course not. But if they release a fragment of code under the GPL
    (say, a boot module for a wireless router) there's nothing to prevent
    them from making a proprietary driver with all source-code closed
    *except * that GPL'd fragment. In fact, this is the most common
    approach that for-profit developers have taken.

    >
    > So while there is some truth in what you say, the reality is that
    > most of
    > Linux (including drivers, apps, and many other things) IS protected
    > by the
    > GPL can could not be easily made proprietary as the source up to
    > that point
    > would be freely available and could be developed and extended by
    > anyone.
    >


    I repeat: The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    "derived" from the Linux kernel. Beyond that, standard intellectual
    property rights control who gets what. Either IBM owns the rights to
    its applications, or its clients do. Either way, the open-source
    community is unlikely to ever see more than a tiny fraction of the
    code generated in the process.

    If I'm wrong -- all you have to do is point me to a link to the
    source-code that I can download for some non-trivial
    application/system that IBM has recently developed for the Linux
    platform and released as open-source.
     
    impossible, Mar 19, 2006
    #35
  16. thing2

    impossible Guest

    "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:52:44 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    >> news:p...
    >>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:57:00 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>> The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    >>>>>> "derived" from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications
    >>>>>> are
    >>>>>> not
    >>>>>> considered derived works, and so these can be made completely
    >>>>>> proprietary.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Not so if they too have been released under the GPL.
    >>>>
    >>>> Point me to the link for one of the non-trivial applications that
    >>>> IBM
    >>>> has developed in the past year that has been released under the
    >>>> GPL.
    >>>
    >>> But who has been discussing IBM's proprietary software?

    >>
    >> Duh! Software "released under the GPL" would not be proprietary.
    >> Would
    >> it? So tell me where I can go to avail myself of all the
    >> open-source
    >> applications that you seem to think IBM is in the business of
    >> producing.

    >
    > I think you're barking up the wrong tree, mate.
    >
    > IBM has made substantial contributions to Linux kernel development.
    >


    You sound like an IBM publicist. In any case, I'll take that to mean
    that, no, you can't find any applications developed by IBM for the
    Linux platform that they've released as open-source.
     
    impossible, Mar 19, 2006
    #36
  17. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:10:42 -0500, impossible wrote:

    > You're talking in circles. GPL-protected code is code "derived" from
    > the Linux kernel. No more, no less.


    That is not true.

    The GNU General Public Licence is a licence published by the Free Software
    Foundation. All of the software released by the Free Software foundation
    is released under the GPL.

    Pan the newsreader that I'm using to post this response to you is released
    under the GPL.

    Evolution - the email client that I use (indeed all of the Gnome desktop)
    is released under the GPL.

    All of the K Desktop Environment is released under the GPL.

    None of the above are in any way derived from code in the Linux kernel.

    In fact, IIRC, KDE was originally released for use in a Unix environment
    like AIX or Solaris.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    "The key benefit of open technologies such as open source software is
    freedom of choice."
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 19, 2006
    #37
  18. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:10:42 -0500, impossible wrote:

    > In fact, this is the most common
    > approach that for-profit developers have taken.


    Is that the approach that you yourself have taken?


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    One Unix to rule them all,
    One Resolver to find them,
    One IP to bring them all
    And in the Zone to Bind them.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 19, 2006
    #38
  19. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:10:42 -0500, impossible wrote:

    > I repeat: The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    > "derived" from the Linux kernel. Beyond that, standard intellectual
    > property rights control who gets what. Either IBM owns the rights to
    > its applications, or its clients do. Either way, the open-source
    > community is unlikely to ever see more than a tiny fraction of the
    > code generated in the process.


    I have news for you. "Standard intellectual property rights" control all
    software released under the GPL. And IBM also owns the copyright to all of
    its contributions to the Linux kernel - and indeed to any open source
    software that it contributes to.

    The quantity of code contributed is irrelevant. What is more important is
    the willingness to open the code for other people to use, to modify, and
    to contribute to.

    IBM is correct - Open Source software is the way forward.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    One Unix to rule them all,
    One Resolver to find them,
    One IP to bring them all
    And in the Zone to Bind them.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 19, 2006
    #39
  20. thing2

    shannon Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >
    >>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:52:44 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:p...
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:57:00 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules
    >>>>>>>"derived" from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications
    >>>>>>>are
    >>>>>>>not
    >>>>>>>considered derived works, and so these can be made completely
    >>>>>>>proprietary.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Not so if they too have been released under the GPL.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Point me to the link for one of the non-trivial applications that
    >>>>>IBM
    >>>>>has developed in the past year that has been released under the
    >>>>>GPL.
    >>>>
    >>>>But who has been discussing IBM's proprietary software?
    >>>
    >>>Duh! Software "released under the GPL" would not be proprietary.
    >>>Would
    >>>it? So tell me where I can go to avail myself of all the
    >>>open-source
    >>>applications that you seem to think IBM is in the business of
    >>>producing.

    >>
    >>I think you're barking up the wrong tree, mate.
    >>
    >>IBM has made substantial contributions to Linux kernel development.
    >>

    >
    >
    > You sound like an IBM publicist. In any case, I'll take that to mean
    > that, no, you can't find any applications developed by IBM for the
    > Linux platform that they've released as open-source.
    >
    >

    http://www.eclipse.org/
     
    shannon, Mar 19, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mutlley
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    365
    Mutlley
    Apr 5, 2009
  2. Me
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    345
    Your Name
    Apr 7, 2009
  3. Peter
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    1,167
    victor
    Jun 20, 2009
  4. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,536
  5. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,565
Loading...

Share This Page