intellectual property and the GPL

intellectual property and the GPL

Post by grom » Sun, 02 Dec 2001 13:55:36



http://www.osopinion.com/cgi-bin/w3t4/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=talk...

Can you have commerical software (eg, software that is sold commerical)
under the GPL?

 
 
 

intellectual property and the GPL

Post by Charlie Ebe » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 06:57:11



> http://www.osopinion.com/cgi-bin/w3t4/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=talk...

> Can you have commerical software (eg, software that is sold commerical)
> under the GPL?

Certainly you can.

What does RedHat do?

There are two ways to go here.

You can CPL your code and sell it in boxed sets with maintenance.

Maintenance is the way GPL code generally makes money aside from
Boxed set sales like RedHat, Mandrake, and Suse.

The other way it to go total proprietary and link your package
to the GNU's LGPL libraries.  In which case you don't have to
publish the sources and you sell the binaries as you do with
the GPL.

You can sell anything under the GPL model.

It the code is GPL'd you have to publish the source code
and make them freely available to anyone who want's them
either on your CDROM you ship or via the internet.

If you downloaded all the GPL'd code today and decided to
make your own Linux distribution you could.

Most people will pick RedHat or Debian as making your own
distribution is very timeconsuming and requires alot of effort.

Your paying them for their time to put this all together for you
and provide maintenance should something go wrong.

And it's proven to be a viable business to go the GPL/maintenance
route.  

Software isn't like a statue.  It must change over time due to
security reasons, and GROWTH.  Old software is like old bread.

--

Charlie

 
 
 

intellectual property and the GPL

Post by Matthew Gardine » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 08:04:32



http://www.osopinion.com/cgi-bin/w3t4/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=talk...
um&Number=22209&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5#Post22209

Quote:

> > Can you have commerical software (eg, software that is sold commerical)
> > under the GPL?

> Certainly you can.

> What does RedHat do?

> There are two ways to go here.

> You can CPL your code and sell it in boxed sets with maintenance.

> Maintenance is the way GPL code generally makes money aside from
> Boxed set sales like RedHat, Mandrake, and Suse.

> The other way it to go total proprietary and link your package
> to the GNU's LGPL libraries.  In which case you don't have to
> publish the sources and you sell the binaries as you do with
> the GPL.

> You can sell anything under the GPL model.

> It the code is GPL'd you have to publish the source code
> and make them freely available to anyone who want's them
> either on your CDROM you ship or via the internet.

> If you downloaded all the GPL'd code today and decided to
> make your own Linux distribution you could.

> Most people will pick RedHat or Debian as making your own
> distribution is very timeconsuming and requires alot of effort.

> Your paying them for their time to put this all together for you
> and provide maintenance should something go wrong.

> And it's proven to be a viable business to go the GPL/maintenance
> route.

> Software isn't like a statue.  It must change over time due to
> security reasons, and GROWTH.  Old software is like old bread.

Also, long term, what are you more likely to make money off, in terms of a
constant stream of cash? the upgrade tread mill or selling
support/upgrade/implementation/training? most people will know that the
later is a more viable model, hence the reason tech giants like UNISYS and
NCR are still around.

Matthew Gardiner

 
 
 

intellectual property and the GPL

Post by Charlie Ebe » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 08:12:30






> http://www.osopinion.com/cgi-bin/w3t4/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=talk...
> um&Number=22209&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5#Post22209

>> > Can you have commerical software (eg, software that is sold commerical)
>> > under the GPL?

>> Certainly you can.

>> What does RedHat do?

>> There are two ways to go here.

>> You can CPL your code and sell it in boxed sets with maintenance.

>> Maintenance is the way GPL code generally makes money aside from
>> Boxed set sales like RedHat, Mandrake, and Suse.

>> The other way it to go total proprietary and link your package
>> to the GNU's LGPL libraries.  In which case you don't have to
>> publish the sources and you sell the binaries as you do with
>> the GPL.

>> You can sell anything under the GPL model.

>> It the code is GPL'd you have to publish the source code
>> and make them freely available to anyone who want's them
>> either on your CDROM you ship or via the internet.

>> If you downloaded all the GPL'd code today and decided to
>> make your own Linux distribution you could.

>> Most people will pick RedHat or Debian as making your own
>> distribution is very timeconsuming and requires alot of effort.

>> Your paying them for their time to put this all together for you
>> and provide maintenance should something go wrong.

>> And it's proven to be a viable business to go the GPL/maintenance
>> route.

>> Software isn't like a statue.  It must change over time due to
>> security reasons, and GROWTH.  Old software is like old bread.

> Also, long term, what are you more likely to make money off, in terms of a
> constant stream of cash? the upgrade tread mill or selling
> support/upgrade/implementation/training? most people will know that the
> later is a more viable model, hence the reason tech giants like UNISYS and
> NCR are still around.

> Matthew Gardiner

I'm telling you Matthew, I worked for a company who make 66 billion dollars
a year in TOP LINE GROSS SALES and we GAVE our software away to the medical
community if they would just sign the maintenance agreement.

WE EVEN GAVE THEM FREE $2,200 a peice Toshiba Laptops to boot for all the
staff who would use the software!!!!!!

Maintenance is the IN market right now and Microsoft's SELLING software
is the OLD market.  It's a thing of the past.

That's why they've invented .NET so they can MILK EVERYBODY to DEATH,
including HBOC.

--

Charlie

 
 
 

intellectual property and the GPL

Post by Matthew Gardine » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 09:43:58









http://www.osopinion.com/cgi-bin/w3t4/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=talk...

Quote:> > um&Number=22209&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5#Post22209

> >> > Can you have commerical software (eg, software that is sold
commerical)
> >> > under the GPL?

> >> Certainly you can.

> >> What does RedHat do?

> >> There are two ways to go here.

> >> You can CPL your code and sell it in boxed sets with maintenance.

> >> Maintenance is the way GPL code generally makes money aside from
> >> Boxed set sales like RedHat, Mandrake, and Suse.

> >> The other way it to go total proprietary and link your package
> >> to the GNU's LGPL libraries.  In which case you don't have to
> >> publish the sources and you sell the binaries as you do with
> >> the GPL.

> >> You can sell anything under the GPL model.

> >> It the code is GPL'd you have to publish the source code
> >> and make them freely available to anyone who want's them
> >> either on your CDROM you ship or via the internet.

> >> If you downloaded all the GPL'd code today and decided to
> >> make your own Linux distribution you could.

> >> Most people will pick RedHat or Debian as making your own
> >> distribution is very timeconsuming and requires alot of effort.

> >> Your paying them for their time to put this all together for you
> >> and provide maintenance should something go wrong.

> >> And it's proven to be a viable business to go the GPL/maintenance
> >> route.

> >> Software isn't like a statue.  It must change over time due to
> >> security reasons, and GROWTH.  Old software is like old bread.

> > Also, long term, what are you more likely to make money off, in terms of
a
> > constant stream of cash? the upgrade tread mill or selling
> > support/upgrade/implementation/training? most people will know that the
> > later is a more viable model, hence the reason tech giants like UNISYS
and
> > NCR are still around.

> > Matthew Gardiner

> I'm telling you Matthew, I worked for a company who make 66 billion
dollars
> a year in TOP LINE GROSS SALES and we GAVE our software away to the
medical
> community if they would just sign the maintenance agreement.

> WE EVEN GAVE THEM FREE $2,200 a peice Toshiba Laptops to boot for all the
> staff who would use the software!!!!!!

> Maintenance is the IN market right now and Microsoft's SELLING software
> is the OLD market.  It's a thing of the past.

> That's why they've invented .NET so they can MILK EVERYBODY to DEATH,
> including HBOC.

Thats what I was getting at. For example. ASB in New Zealand has been a
UNISYS/burroughs customer for over 20 years. Thats 20 years worth of
maintainance. All UNISYS/Burroughs had to do it keep the machines running,
tweak the software here and there, and they were paid. Microsoft however
makes software, that is crap, then charges for tech support through their
legionaires of salespeople in the hope that companies will upgrade-upgrade
and upgrade until the cows come home.

Matthew Gardiner

 
 
 

intellectual property and the GPL

Post by Charlie Ebe » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 09:46:10










> http://www.osopinion.com/cgi-bin/w3t4/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=talk...
>> > um&Number=22209&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5#Post22209

>> >> > Can you have commerical software (eg, software that is sold
> commerical)
>> >> > under the GPL?

>> >> Certainly you can.

>> >> What does RedHat do?

>> >> There are two ways to go here.

>> >> You can CPL your code and sell it in boxed sets with maintenance.

>> >> Maintenance is the way GPL code generally makes money aside from
>> >> Boxed set sales like RedHat, Mandrake, and Suse.

>> >> The other way it to go total proprietary and link your package
>> >> to the GNU's LGPL libraries.  In which case you don't have to
>> >> publish the sources and you sell the binaries as you do with
>> >> the GPL.

>> >> You can sell anything under the GPL model.

>> >> It the code is GPL'd you have to publish the source code
>> >> and make them freely available to anyone who want's them
>> >> either on your CDROM you ship or via the internet.

>> >> If you downloaded all the GPL'd code today and decided to
>> >> make your own Linux distribution you could.

>> >> Most people will pick RedHat or Debian as making your own
>> >> distribution is very timeconsuming and requires alot of effort.

>> >> Your paying them for their time to put this all together for you
>> >> and provide maintenance should something go wrong.

>> >> And it's proven to be a viable business to go the GPL/maintenance
>> >> route.

>> >> Software isn't like a statue.  It must change over time due to
>> >> security reasons, and GROWTH.  Old software is like old bread.

>> > Also, long term, what are you more likely to make money off, in terms of
> a
>> > constant stream of cash? the upgrade tread mill or selling
>> > support/upgrade/implementation/training? most people will know that the
>> > later is a more viable model, hence the reason tech giants like UNISYS
> and
>> > NCR are still around.

>> > Matthew Gardiner

>> I'm telling you Matthew, I worked for a company who make 66 billion
> dollars
>> a year in TOP LINE GROSS SALES and we GAVE our software away to the
> medical
>> community if they would just sign the maintenance agreement.

>> WE EVEN GAVE THEM FREE $2,200 a peice Toshiba Laptops to boot for all the
>> staff who would use the software!!!!!!

>> Maintenance is the IN market right now and Microsoft's SELLING software
>> is the OLD market.  It's a thing of the past.

>> That's why they've invented .NET so they can MILK EVERYBODY to DEATH,
>> including HBOC.

> Thats what I was getting at. For example. ASB in New Zealand has been a
> UNISYS/burroughs customer for over 20 years. Thats 20 years worth of
> maintainance. All UNISYS/Burroughs had to do it keep the machines running,
> tweak the software here and there, and they were paid. Microsoft however
> makes software, that is crap, then charges for tech support through their
> legionaires of salespeople in the hope that companies will upgrade-upgrade
> and upgrade until the cows come home.

> Matthew Gardiner

Yes, I agree.

I've been on the Unisys team also with another firm.

It was the banking standard for everyone at ome time.

--

Charlie

 
 
 

intellectual property and the GPL

Post by Bob Hau » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 12:09:17


On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:46:10 GMT, Charlie Ebert


> I've been on the Unisys team also with another firm.

I used to work for Unisys.  It was a disaster from the get-go.

Quote:> It was the banking standard for everyone at ome time.

Or, rather, Burroughs and Sperry-Univac were.  Unisys started to turn
to *about five minutes after they signed the merger deal.  The
Unisys of today is an order of magnitude smaller than *either* of the
predecessor companies.  There's some success for ya.  The only reason
they didn't get bought out like DEC was because there wasn't anything
left worth having after Mike Blumenthal and his cronies were through
looting the place.

I'm not sure how Unisys is an example of the success of services other
than that they'd have disappeared completely but for that.

--
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| To Whom You Are Speaking
 -| http://www.veryComputer.com/

 
 
 

intellectual property and the GPL

Post by Matthew Gardine » Tue, 04 Dec 2001 13:57:14



> On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:46:10 GMT, Charlie Ebert

> > I've been on the Unisys team also with another firm.

> I used to work for Unisys.  It was a disaster from the get-go.

> > It was the banking standard for everyone at ome time.

> Or, rather, Burroughs and Sperry-Univac were.  Unisys started to turn
> to *about five minutes after they signed the merger deal.  The
> Unisys of today is an order of magnitude smaller than *either* of the
> predecessor companies.  There's some success for ya.  The only reason
> they didn't get bought out like DEC was because there wasn't anything
> left worth having after Mike Blumenthal and his cronies were through
> looting the place.

> I'm not sure how Unisys is an example of the success of services other
> than that they'd have disappeared completely but for that.

My old man used to work for UNISYS/Burroughs New Zealand. I was using the
"UNISYS" of old. The one twenty-thirty years ago that had its shit together.
Unfortunately, there are only a few left who actually take pride in
producing quality software, hardware, services and god forbid, actually
listening to customers, shock, horror!

As for DEC, it was better off sticking to what it knew best, producing
quality workstations and enterprise class servers. Instead of competing on
price, producing shit-house PeeCees and NT "servers", aka, glorified
desktops, they should have emphasised quality, reliability and superior
support and recovery assistance. Ask any one who worked with VMS and Vax
machines. Built like a brick shit house. Heck, I used to go past Windows 95
desktops and the machines used to BSOD when I came with in a 2 metre radius
of it!

Matthew Gardiner

 
 
 

1. Seminar: GPL versus Intellectual Property

     Is your IP safe? What about tomorrow? What are you doing to
protect your company's Intellectual Property while using GPL and
other open source licensed software as SCO and IBM duke it out
in the courts and boardrooms?
     Protecting company intellectual property while taking
maximum advantage of GPL (and other Open Source licensed)
software is essential in today's environment. The central
activity of this course is the preparation of a project
implementation plan that specifically lists the steps and
provisions necessary to protect your Intellectual Property
throughout the product life-time.
     This one-day seminar is for managers of software engineering
organizations. Senior engineering personnel and engineering vice
presidents venturing into the use of open source software should
also attend.

visit our website at http://www.rytetyme.com/ for complete
details.

--

1-602-789-6957

##########################################################################

# PLEASE remember a short description of the software and the LOCATION.  #
# This group is archived at http://stump.algebra.com/~cola/              #
##########################################################################

2. Password File lock problem

3. The GPL: Intellectual Protection or Intellectual Theft?

4. [2.4] generic cluster APIC support for systems with more than 8 CPUs

5. Zip Utilities

6. Does innovation require intellectual property rights

7. TCP/UDP statistics

8. Intellectual Property DANGER! (Re: DVD driver)

9. Intellectual Property Rights

10. Proposal: Liberated Intellectual Property Organization (LIPO)

11. Intellectual property rights

12. contamination with UNIX intellectual property and job changes