Re: A reply on the RTLinux discussion.

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>]

On Wednesday 29 May 2002 14:36, Rose, Billy wrote:
> > The
> > patent grant says it can be used for GPL software. As a free software
> > author I have no problems at all with Victor's patent. If I want to do
> > proprietary software well shucks, I'm going to have to play by the
> > proprietary rules. I don't see that anti free software. It 
> > might be anti
> > how convenient I can mix the two and flog it for lots of money, but
> > thats not free software anyway.
> ...
> 
> Enough said. Business is business, bottom line. Coding in open source
> is artwork. These guys building this kernel are artists. Those guys
> selling stuff are business people. So, you want to use my artwork for
> money? Fine, then pay me to let someone have the privilege. Want to
> help me paint parts of the memory handling? Fine, here's a paint brush
> all your own... totally free.

These are fine-sounding words, but this is not the intent of, for
example, the GPL, which intentionally accomodates the needs of commerce.
If it didn't - i.e., no provision for closed apps on the GPL operating
system - you can be sure that Linux would not have grown as it has.

What we're really discussing is whether we're willing to allow patent
restrictions to inhibit the growth of Linux in new areas that go beyond
its traditional IT role, and further, whether we're willing to accept
such restrictions from people or companies that depend on Linux for
their sustenance, and who have benefitted from the lack of such
restrictions as they wish to impose on others.

-- 
Daniel