Linux World domination (was Re: [NCLUG] PC for Linux (Ubuntu))

Brian Wood bwood at beww.org
Sat Sep 20 08:13:04 MDT 2008


Chad Perrin wrote:

> 
> Without the code, you don't own *the code*.  This is not the same as not
> owning the *software*.  If you possess an executable binary free of legal
> entanglements, you own *the executable binary software*.  If you possess
> source code free of legal entanglements, you own *the source code*.
> These are *not* the same thing.

I'm not sure how you plan to own an executable binary "free of legal
entanglements". Ever read the license for commercial software? Those are
about as entangling as anything in this world.

Most commercial software is not sold, it is licensed, and the terms of
some of the licenses border on the absurd. For example, with most
versions of Vista, you are nor permitted to run it in an emulated
environment.

Then there is Sony, who didn't see anything wrong with installing root
kits on customers machines, without their knowledge or permission, in
order to "check compliance" with the license (though this was not
"software", it was music, which I guess might be called "software", as
it is a pattern of data).

Most licenses literally grant the publisher the right to barge into your
house to "check compliance".

Nothing wrong with such a license, as long as both parties agree to it
and it is legal, but most people don't read the EULAs, and wouldn't
understand them if they did. Heck, the lawyers who write the licenses
can't agree on what they actually mean.

So I use FOSS when I can, and commercial stuff when I have to. I really
do try and comply with any license I agree to, but it can be hard when
you can't figure out what they mean.

As Linus once said: he who writes the code gets to choose the license.

beww



More information about the NCLUG mailing list