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 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.


    Yeah, fine. So we ALL own the copyright to GPL-protected software. But
    when IBM develops custom software applications for its clients to run
    on the Linux OS, we don't get to look at a single line of code unless
    either IBM or its client decide to let us. If you can't recognize the
    difference between those two standards of intellectual property, then
    I give up.

    >
    > 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.


    Exactly. And the fact that you can't point me to a single application
    that IBM has developed for the Linux OS and released as open-source
    suggests to me there's not much willingness there on the part of IBM
    at all. How could it be otherwise if they're going to make a business
    out this?
    impossible, Mar 19, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. thing2

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <>,
    "impossible" <> wrote:
    |
    |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.

    I'm well aware of its history, having used REXX since 1981.
    The Windows version sold well enough. REXX's main user base is large
    business environments. One of my jobs at IBM was to teach customers how to
    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 20, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:21:13 -0500, impossible wrote:

    >> 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.

    >
    > Yeah, fine. So we ALL own the copyright to GPL-protected software.


    That is not correct.

    The authors of the software themselves own the copyright to their own
    individual contributions.

    If you as an individual make a contribution to the Linux kernel, then
    *you* and only you own the copyright to your contribution - to the
    specific lines of code that you wrote.

    And, because the Linux kernel is licenced under the GPL any modification
    or extension that you make to the Linux kernel must also be licenced under
    the GPL - those are the terms of the licence that you would have to
    release the modification under.

    Have you read the GPL?


    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 20, 2006
    #43
  4. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:21:13 -0500, impossible wrote:

    > But
    > when IBM develops custom software applications for its clients to run
    > on the Linux OS, we don't get to look at a single line of code unless
    > either IBM or its client decide to let us. If you can't recognize the
    > difference between those two standards of intellectual property, then
    > I give up.


    Nobody is suggesting (other than, perhaps yourself) that IBM, or indeed
    any person or corporation, cannot release software under any licence it
    pleases.

    And if it so happens that IBM chooses to release a software package under
    a closed source licence, then it is perfectly entitled to do so.

    BUT, that closed source package shall not be a derivitive work based on
    any code that was released under the GPL - as to do so is in violation of
    the GPL and automatically would revoke the right to use that software.

    Have you read the GPL?


    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 20, 2006
    #44
  5. thing2

    Bok Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > 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?


    WebSphere and DB2 spring to mind
    Bok, Mar 20, 2006
    #45
  6. thing2

    Bok Guest

    RJ wrote:
    >> It's always amusing to me to find that the very people who are so
    >> scornful of Microsoft's monopoly are such champions of IBM's. New
    >> business model, same old story. Companies that used to be beholden to
    >> Microsoft for its software licenses are now beholden to IBM for their
    >> support and development services. So much for the revolutionary age of
    >> OSS!

    >
    > For IBM Its a means to an end

    Right now, IBM are right behind linux because it is selling big iron in
    the form of Z-Series and now P-Series.

    > Apple did their own proprietry OS on top of BSD
    > IBM will do theirs on top of Linux or whatever one day as soon as they
    > have control of enough of the market.

    Not sure about that. IBM have had their own proprietary *nix variant in
    the form of AIX for some time. Depending on the success of linux on
    P-Series that may get phased out ...

    > They are making billions on their proprietry HARDWARE first and
    > foremost.

    Correct!
    Bok, Mar 20, 2006
    #46
  7. thing2

    impossible Guest

    "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:21:13 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >
    >> But
    >> when IBM develops custom software applications for its clients to
    >> run
    >> on the Linux OS, we don't get to look at a single line of code
    >> unless
    >> either IBM or its client decide to let us. If you can't recognize
    >> the
    >> difference between those two standards of intellectual property,
    >> then
    >> I give up.

    >
    > Nobody is suggesting (other than, perhaps yourself) that IBM, or
    > indeed
    > any person or corporation, cannot release software under any licence
    > it
    > pleases.
    >
    > And if it so happens that IBM chooses to release a software package
    > under
    > a closed source licence, then it is perfectly entitled to do so.


    Then what are you on about? IBM doesn't just "so happen" to release
    software under a closed-source license -- that's its standard business
    practice. The exceptional case is when IBM releases software under an
    open-source license -- fragments of code for the GPL-protected Linux
    kernel, for example, which is the only instance you've cited so far.
    impossible, Mar 20, 2006
    #47
  8. thing2

    RJ Guest

    In article <>, s.t.e.v.e.
    @dontchaluvusenet.org.nz says...
    > RJ wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>, says...
    > >> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:07:12 +1300, thing2 wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >

    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/9C85E113E60B16B4CC25712D0010E126?OpenDocument
    > >> >
    > >> > IBM, the biggest services provider on the globe........
    > >> >
    > >> > Linux, a lovely little earner for IBM........growing at 35%....
    > >>
    > >> Good news!
    > >>
    > >> Both IBM and RedHat easily demonstrate that there is plenty of money to
    > >> be made out of supporting Linux.

    > >
    > > never mind Redhat,
    > >
    > > Ibm will be big al right and when they are, that'll be the end of Linux,
    > > it'll be hello proprietary OS again and they'll be another Microsoft

    >
    > First there can be no "again" as Linux has never been proprietary.
    >
    > Second, Linux is covered by the GPL, so IBM can't "own" it.
    >
    > Nor can anyone else.
    >
    > I'm frankly amazed that after all these years someone in nz.comp like
    > yourself could still be almost totally ignorant of such matters.


    You're a cretin.

    all they have to do is be like apple (FreeBSD) and produce their own OS
    with proprietary extensions on top of the FOSS bit.
    RJ, Mar 23, 2006
    #48
  9. On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:50:39 +1200, RJ wrote:

    > all they have to do is be like apple (FreeBSD) and produce their own OS
    > with proprietary extensions on top of the FOSS bit.


    Look, Shit-for-brains, you cannot add "proprietary extensions" to GPL'd
    software. What you CAN do, however, is make GPL'd extensions to GPL'd
    software.

    Free software cannot be enslaved.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    Jeffrey Jaffe, Novell CTO: "Our entire company does most of its work on Linux."
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 23, 2006
    #49
  10. thing2

    Shane Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

    > On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:50:39 +1200, RJ wrote:
    >
    >> all they have to do is be like apple (FreeBSD) and produce their own OS
    >> with proprietary extensions on top of the FOSS bit.

    >
    > Look, Shit-for-brains, you cannot add "proprietary extensions" to GPL'd
    > software. What you CAN do, however, is make GPL'd extensions to GPL'd
    > software.
    >
    > Free software cannot be enslaved.
    >
    >
    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    >


    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/12/linux_gpl30_letters/
    TiVo
    Proprietary interface riding on Linux, just like Apples GUI is proprietary,
    riding with FreeBSD userspace applications (Apple uses a Mach 10 kernel
    IIRC, which is also proprietary)
    Shane, Mar 23, 2006
    #50
  11. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:14:32 +1200, Shane wrote:

    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/12/linux_gpl30_letters/
    > TiVo
    > Proprietary interface riding on Linux, just like Apples GUI is proprietary,
    > riding with FreeBSD userspace applications (Apple uses a Mach 10 kernel
    > IIRC, which is also proprietary)


    In case you hadn't noticed, but FreeBSD was not released under the GPL.

    And there is nothing wrong with a proprietary software package making use
    of GPL'd software packages - so long as the two packages are completely
    separate in design, and in fuction, and in build.

    I mean, if that wasn't the case then nobody would be able to run GPL'd
    software on top of Micro$oft Windows.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    "The only difference between Vista and prior releases (back to at least
    NT4/Windows 2000) is the size of the **** up. It's been business as usual
    with resets, lack of planning, disdain for project management techniques
    used outside MS, and deathmarches throughout."
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 24, 2006
    #51
  12. thing2

    Shane Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

    > On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:14:32 +1200, Shane wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/12/linux_gpl30_letters/
    >> TiVo
    >> Proprietary interface riding on Linux, just like Apples GUI is
    >> proprietary, riding with FreeBSD userspace applications (Apple uses a
    >> Mach 10 kernel IIRC, which is also proprietary)

    >
    > In case you hadn't noticed, but FreeBSD was not released under the GPL.
    >
    > And there is nothing wrong with a proprietary software package making use
    > of GPL'd software packages - so long as the two packages are completely
    > separate in design, and in fuction, and in build.
    >
    > I mean, if that wasn't the case then nobody would be able to run GPL'd
    > software on top of Micro$oft Windows.
    >
    >
    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    >



    Typical idiot
    someone points out youre wrong and you cut the context and try to change the
    goalposts
    this is what you replyed to

    >>>> You're a cretin.
    >>>>
    >>>> all they have to do is be like apple (FreeBSD) and produce their own OS
    >>>> with proprietary extensions on top of the FOSS bit.


    This was your reply
    >>> Look, Shit-for-brains, you cannot add "proprietary extensions" to GPL'd
    >>> software. What you CAN do, however, is make GPL'd extensions to GPL'd
    >>> software.
    >>>
    >>> Free software cannot be enslaved.


    This is the truth
    Tivo is a proprietary application running on Linux in fact its existence is
    often pointed out as a reason for GPL3 to be implemented
    Shane, Mar 24, 2006
    #52
  13. thing2

    RJ Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:50:39 +1200, RJ wrote:
    >
    > > all they have to do is be like apple (FreeBSD) and produce their own OS
    > > with proprietary extensions on top of the FOSS bit.

    >
    > Look, Shit-for-brains,


    LOL
    Your a total cretin
    Who is losing the plot

    > you cannot add "proprietary extensions" to GPL'd
    > software.


    total and utter crap
    I can write an application that calls Gpl APis and make it a closed
    source application

    there are already proprietary applications running on linux.
    RJ, Mar 24, 2006
    #53
  14. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:43:03 +1200, RJ wrote:

    > total and utter crap
    > I can write an application that calls Gpl APis and make it a closed
    > source application


    Since when, Shit-for-brains, is an API anything other than a means to
    communicate with an application?

    LAME is a software package in its own right. There are many MP3 programmes
    that use Lame as the encoding engine. Those, however, are not proprietary
    extensions of Lame.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    "The only difference between Vista and prior releases (back to at least
    NT4/Windows 2000) is the size of the **** up. It's been business as usual
    with resets, lack of planning, disdain for project management techniques
    used outside MS, and deathmarches throughout."
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 24, 2006
    #54
  15. thing2

    RJ Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:43:03 +1200, RJ wrote:
    >
    > > total and utter crap
    > > I can write an application that calls Gpl APis and make it a closed
    > > source application

    >
    > Since when, Shit-for-brains, is an API anything other than a means to
    > communicate with an application?


    Meaning what cretin

    > LAME is a software package in its own right. There are many MP3 programmes
    > that use Lame as the encoding engine. Those, however, are not proprietary
    > extensions of Lame.


    These apps use Lame to make them work
    In the same way a Os can be extended by a proprietary layer (such as a
    Gui) on top of an existing (perhap open source) operating system
    You don;t need to modify the Os code, just calls its implemented Api
    functions.

    Windows 3.1 as a Gui on top of Dos made use of the well known Bios APi
    that was already provided through Dos. They didn't need to rewrite Dos
    to make Windows work
    RJ, Mar 24, 2006
    #55
  16. thing2

    shannon Guest

    Shane wrote:
    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:14:32 +1200, Shane wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/12/linux_gpl30_letters/
    >>> TiVo
    >>> Proprietary interface riding on Linux, just like Apples GUI is
    >>> proprietary, riding with FreeBSD userspace applications (Apple uses a
    >>> Mach 10 kernel IIRC, which is also proprietary)

    >> In case you hadn't noticed, but FreeBSD was not released under the GPL.
    >>
    >> And there is nothing wrong with a proprietary software package making use
    >> of GPL'd software packages - so long as the two packages are completely
    >> separate in design, and in fuction, and in build.
    >>
    >> I mean, if that wasn't the case then nobody would be able to run GPL'd
    >> software on top of Micro$oft Windows.
    >>
    >>
    >> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    >>

    >
    >
    > Typical idiot
    > someone points out youre wrong and you cut the context and try to change the
    > goalposts
    > this is what you replyed to
    >
    >>>>> You're a cretin.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> all they have to do is be like apple (FreeBSD) and produce their own OS
    >>>>> with proprietary extensions on top of the FOSS bit.

    >
    > This was your reply
    >>>> Look, Shit-for-brains, you cannot add "proprietary extensions" to GPL'd
    >>>> software. What you CAN do, however, is make GPL'd extensions to GPL'd
    >>>> software.
    >>>>
    >>>> Free software cannot be enslaved.

    >
    > This is the truth
    > Tivo is a proprietary application running on Linux in fact its existence is
    > often pointed out as a reason for GPL3 to be implemented
    >
    >


    The Linux OS is what makes the TiVo hackable, its not a bad thing

    Its no surprise why TiVo is *nix based, the company was founded a a
    joint venture between AT&T and Silicon Graphics headed by James Barton
    of Silicon Graphics and it uses an IBM PowerPC processor.
    shannon, Mar 24, 2006
    #56
    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:
    362
    Mutlley
    Apr 5, 2009
  2. Me
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    343
    Your Name
    Apr 7, 2009
  3. Peter
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    1,160
    victor
    Jun 20, 2009
  4. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,527
  5. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,532
Loading...

Share This Page