What a waste of resources...Google could just work tied with the kernel community. Come on Google what are you waiting for? Besides this fact, if linux kernel code is GPLv2 why don't they release their code and respect GPLv2 license terms?
Posted Oct 21, 2009 14:36 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
I don't know if you noticed or not, but the GPL licensing terms only kick in===>> Reply ==>>
during distribution. Seeing how a corporation is a independent legal person I
don't think that moving software and hardware around internally really counts
as distribution. And I don't think that Google has any plans on selling its
systems to other people.So the GPL is pretty irrelevant.
So it is just a business case of whether working with the kernel community is
going to be more profitable or not. And so far they decided that taking care
of stuff internally is a better approach. Maybe that will change.
Posted Oct 21, 2009 15:00 UTC (Wed) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216)
Correct, the GPL doesn't require the release of this internal source code. However, the GPL does have an effect (by intent): Google cannot take the GPL'ed program, modify it, and sell the result as a proprietary program. Thus, what Google is doing is almost certainly wasting its own resources, by trying to do its own parallel maintenance. They could probably save a lot of money and time by working with the kernel developers; it's a short-term cost for long-term gain. And as a side-effect, doing so would help all other kernel users.
There's probably some stuff that will stay Google-only, but if they worked to halve it, they'd probably save far more than half their money. Google can do this, in spite of its long-term inefficiencies, because they have a lot of money... but that doesn't mean it's the best choice for them or anyone else.
At the US Department of Defense, open source and proprietary software are now on equal footing. According to Defense Department guidance issued yesterday (PDF), open-source software (OSS) should be treated just like any other software product. The document also specifies some of the advantages of OSS for the Department of Defense (DoD). These include the ability to quickly alter the code as situations and missions change, the stability of the software because of the broad peer-review, as well as the absence of per-seat licensing costs. The document also stresses that OSS is "particularly suitable for rapid prototyping and experimentation, where the ability to 'test drive' the software with minimal costs and administrative delays can be important.
From the Defense Department's guidance document:
"To effectively achieve its missions, the Department of Defense must develop and update its software-based capabilities faster than ever, to anticipate new threats and respond to continuously changing requirements. The use of Open Source Software (OSS) can provide advantages in this regard."You can find the entire guidance document here. In it, there are many indications that the Defense Department likes the idea of "peer review" of code from a reliability and security standpoint. The advantage of "many eyeballs" that open source has from this perspective is often cited.
System –> Preferences –> Keyboard –> Layouts (Tab) –> Layout Options –>
Key sequence to kill the X server and (Tick) Control + Alt + Backspace.
Posts
All Comments
