How mission critical-worthy is Linux on Wall Street when Stallman would do his best to use the GPL to stop the presses, err the stock market and financial transactions, to make sure his "four freedoms" are protected?

James and Noel, let me see if I can follow your logic here:
- Most of Linux is licensed under GPLv2.
- IBM and others have marketed Linux with a great deal of success.
- GPLv3-licensed software may be more difficult to commercialize.
- Linus Torvalds has publicly stated he will not license the Linux kernel under GPLv3.
- Therefore, Wall Street should not invest in Linux.

Am I missing something here? Your attempts to link IBM with Stallman's latest crusade remind me of President Bush's attempts to link Saddam with al-Qaeda. I'm sure that Stallman would love to have the sort of control over IBM (and Red Hat, and Sun., etc) that you have repeatedly insinuated he has, but in the real world what Stallman says is irrelevant to whether FOSS, and specifically Linux, are good investments for many.

A major benefit of FOSS, including GPL software, over proprietary software is that no one, including Mr. Stallman, has any ability to "stop the presses." And as for what GPL3 says, it hasn't been promulgated yet, and Linux will not use it.

By all means, let's debate the merits of FOSS - but your attempts to tar all FOSS with the brush of Stallman's fanaticism is disingenuous. I recommend you read "The Success of Open Source," by Steve Weber (Harvard University Press 2004). Professor Weber is a member of the Global Business Network, www.gbn.com, and he discusses FOSS from an economist's point of view.

MAY be more difficult to commercialize. Even that's a bit of a stretch. Tthe GPLv3 only prevents certain abusive behaviours. Noel has perennial difficulty distinguishing between "commercialized" and "commercialized in a particlar fashion by a particular I'P'-fanatic group of existing business interests".

I'm confused. How does the GPL v3 prevent Novell and Microsoft from working together? All the GPL v3 does is try to restrict Novell from seeking a preferential patent license from Microsoft. If Microsoft wants to indemnify all Linux distributors, or if they want to collaborate without signing a patent agreement first, there's nothing to prevent them from doing either.

Tim, you ask a question (how GPL3 prevents collaboration between MSFT and Novell) when you'll try to argue that the GPL *should* do just that, then you answer your own question by citing preferential patent licensing and indemnification. Are you talking to yourself, asking us to struggle to interpret you or speaking in riddles?

One of the strengths of the IP system is that it enables flexible contracting. This allows adaptive collaborations and business models. Its sad that the free software folks would slow the world down for their "four freedoms." To say that they have no sense of proportion or judgement would be a compliment.

Noel:

Tim is making the simple point that GPL 3.0 prevents Novell from making a preferential agreement with MS, which could have the effect of stealing some from the GPL commons, not that it would prevent MS and Novell working together on interoperability, if they want to. Those are two different things.

BTW, Just saw Richard at University of Missouri, and he is quite far from being a fanatic. His message is very simple freedom is good, and those who want to take it away are bad. It really is that simple.

EF

Noel, people ask you specific questions and your answers are so general as to be meaningless. You seem to be suggesting that GPL3 will interfere with Microsoft and Novell's flexibility in contracting, and is therefore a bad thing. But nothing's forcing Microsoft or Novell to distribute any GPL3 software, and in any case neither Microsoft nor Novell owns the copyrights in most of Linux. Those who do own the copyrights can put whatever conditions they want on their copyright license - they are exercising the flexibility in contracting given to them by copyright law.

If Microsoft and Novell entered a patent agreement regarding the use of proprietary software written by, say, Oracle, and Oracle then refused to license the software to Novell, would you criticize Oracle for interfering with the flexibility of contracting, or would you say Oracle is rightfully exercising its IP rights?

Frankly, I know if you answer this post at all it will be with a vague criticism of the GPL (and by implication all FOSS) as being somehow antithetical to the free market. But I really would like to know how you see the GPL3 response to the Microsoft-Novell agreement as different from the hypothetical scenario I described.

Enigma: Simplicity is not antithetical to fanaticism.

John, I'll comment specifically on GPL3 when its finished:) In the mean time, the issue here is preferential licensing and contracting. Under Tim's conception, Red Hat would be obliged to indemnify all FOSS distros, so I believe he misses the obvious because he over-complicates issues around GPL3. On the other hand, he over-simplifies innovation generally, by suggesting it would proceed under something such as the GPL whereas free software hasn't substantially penetrated any commercial market segment.

Noel: Red Hat would be obliged to indemnify all FOSS distros only if they do the following things:
1) Include GPL3-covered code in their Linux distros.
2) Enter a preferential patent indemnity agreement.

If they don't do (1), they can do (2) freely, and vice versa. What they can't do is use code written by others in violation of the conditions set by the authors of that code. Isn't that the sort of restriction that PFF supports?

And again with the glittering generalizations - now you claim that innovation can't (and has not) occurred in a GPL context. I suggest you look at how much software has been developed using GCC, the Gnu C compiler. Not to mention Linux, which under any measure has substantially penetrated many commercial market segments, and is licensed under GPL 2.1. Yes, Stallman has issues with a lot of the commercial Linux distributions - but so what? They're largely GPL-covered, and they have a significant share of the server market.

John, in my view, Red Hat can do what they want. I was merely generalizing from Tim's reasoning. If he is against preferential contracting, he has to apply his lessons to FOSS distros as well.

As far as innovation and the GPL, that would favor the service and infrastructure side of the technology industries. I see a lot of innovation occurring outside of those spaces.