Re: [HACKERS] BSD vs. GPL

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Consider Redhad, Caldera, etc.  They are adding value "on top of"
> the OS, but the kernel is pretty much the same for all of them.  In
> fact, aside from some tweaks, they really aren't involved in
> enhancing the lower levels of Linux, and economically, they really can't. .

To which Michael Meskes responded:
> I beg to disagree. RedHat for instance pays quite some people for working on
> GNOME. All of GNOME's software is GPLed and still it seems to make sense for
> Debian. Or how about Coral that works on a GPLes installation procedure for
> Debian?

And to which Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
> But Bruce, you're uninformed.  Heck, you're dead wrong.  The two
> organizations you name, and more besides do work on the Linux kernel.
> A lot.  I realize that you're not deeply connected in the Linux
> community, so you may not realize much of this, but the simple fact is
> that RedHat and others do exactly what you say they don't.
> 
> Caldera has contributed significantly to both the PPP code and IPX
> code in the Linux kernel.  They've developed a SYSV Streams emulation
> (that Linus doesn't want in the main kernel :-), and some other stuff.
> 
> RedHat employs Doug Ledford who works on (and has put a *lot* or work
> into) the Adaptec 7XXX driver.  They employ Dave Miller who works on
> both multi-arch issues and oversees (and codes a fair portion) of the
> TCP networking.  They (through his consulting firm) employ Alan Cox,
> who is often regarded as Linus' right-hand man, and was responsible
> for seeing the 2.0.36 and 2.0.37 stable kernels to release, plus
> whatever other scut jobs are out there.  I believe RH also employs
> Stephen C. Tweedie, who does major work on the ext2 fs, including
> adding journaling.
> 
> In fact, one could argue that if the people RedHat pays to work on the
> kernel disappeared, work on the kernel would suddenly get an awful lot
> slower.
> 
> SUSE employs Andrea Arcangeli, who is doing a ton of work on the Linux
> VM system.  SUSE has also developed X servers which they then
> contrib'd back to XFree86.org, which arguably benefits even more
> people since XF86 works on the *BSDs (including BSD/OS, no?) (and
> which, since XF86 is under the MIT license, someone could then take
> and make proprietary...fair?).
> 
> So, in light of these new facts, would you like to reassess your
> assessment?

Red Hat is in the business of establishing a corporate trademark 
and becoming the "standard" Linux so that it can establish a monopoly. 
To this end, they will spend some serious doe, but only on improvements
and fixes that directly affect the ability of the distribution to ship
to a client, thus, we have RPM, device drivers, and GNOME.
However, even with this notable effort, I would like to know
what % of revenue Red Hat plans to spend on open source development...

I doubt that it is anything "significant", and if it is, I would
call Red Hat's situation exceptional.  They have a near monopoly on
corporate/consumer distributions, and their $80 price tag is the 
proof.  Do you think after the near monopoly becomes a full monopoly
that this % of revenue will increase or decrease?  I'd bet
on the latter.   The Microsoft pattern, albeit a much less powerful
strain, is about to re-occur.   What good is a bunch of software if 
it can't be named?  It isn't.  In the software world, a trademark 
is a name for a standard.  And RedHat is about to own it. 

Thus, although you you have found some noteable exceptions to 
Bruce's comments, the general thrust of his argument still 
holds -- if the software distribution market was competitive, 
companies like RedHat, etc., could not afford to fund open 
source development. 

However, RedHat's business is NOT distribution, it is
standardization.  And this allows them to spend money
on open source _if_ it is in their best interest.  I would
argue that it is in their best interest now, but it
won't be in a few years after they have a fimly 
established monopoly. 

Thus, your exceptions point to a deeper problem with
open source, rather than positive support for it.

Best Wishes,

Clark Evans

P.S.  It is slightly different (and a few months old)
but I wrote a possible alternative at http:\\distributedcopyright.org  
It would be cool to have your feedback.