Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses

Salon Article on Red Hat and Cygnus 75

Posted by jamie from the why-make-billions-when-you-could-make-millions dept.
krshultz writes "Salon has a piece on Red Hat's aquisition of Cygnus Solutions. It mentions concerns that shareholders might see more dollar signs in proprietary software, and there's an interesting bit about the future of things like gcc." I didn't know gcc had a steering committee. It's nice to see its developers concerned about what all this will mean to the community.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Salon Article on Red Hat and Cygnus More

Salon Article on Red Hat and Cygnus

Comments Filter:
  • Since gcc is under the liscence of the GPL it is impossible for it not to stay free forever. If someone does try to take it away they will just get someone else to maintain it.
  • Well the most you can really say is that they could have a similar ecconomic model. Even if they charge for the OS people still have choices for linux: Debian, slackware, etc. Redhat is not linux and people should really understand that.
  • I've read that Redhat is working on adding things like large disc support, a journaling file system, etc to a custom linux version (ie redhat) Are they forking the kernel here - leaving the normal kernel dev people to integrate what they do on their own, or are they working with the kernel development team to actually bring these features to the standard linux kernels?
  • A question for you: How long do you think that it would be before other kernel developers were to do something similar to the real linux kernel if Red Hat did something like this? I would suspect even if they turn into finks they still cannot do any real harm. What is the limitation by the way for hd's in linux?

  • The Future of GCC (Score:3)

    by devphil ( 51341 ) on Friday November 19, 1999 @06:24AM (#1519066) Homepage
    Yes, GCC does have a steering committee, mainly to prevent a single person or group from exerting too much control over the project, thus paralyzing development. (The entire EGCS idea was to get away from exactly that problem, which is /why/ there was no new GCC for a long time.)

    The Salon article talks about Jeff [Law] mentioning changes to the steering committee. This is the first article in the thread:

    http://egcs.cygnus.com/ml/gcc/1999-11/msg00421.h tml

    and the "changes" article comes later in the thread IIRC. Currently, Cygnus/RH employees together still don't have anywhere near a majority on the committee.
  • Well obviously you wanted to push buttons so here you go:

    1. You can do that however cygnus already has proprietary extensions and services. The rest of the tools are not theirs to regulate terms of.

    2. Impossible for code that is already liscenced under the GNU GPL you would have a rather big legal figh on your hands. That's even worse for share holders in general to have a bad image for the company.

    3. Again impossible because the original code was under a liscence which makes changing it for another impossible.

    4. Well if your product is really popular you don't have a prayer of stopping pirates. Look at how many sites you get if you go to google, altivista, alltheweb or others under the keyword "warez" lots huh? The only way to have people not pirate your stuff is if it's pretty dull stuff that no one cares about. I dare to bet that no one has pirated Mathmatica or Maple for linux to a warez site.

    As a public company you have an obligation to give people a fair shake. If you don't do this you will loose as many customeers as you gain through the practices that you outlined. In fact you might have to file for chapter 14 if you do that.
  • well, it would be cool if redhat could put these features togeather as modules. but i think that those features might be too basic for modules to be able to handle?

    Most kernel development done outside of the kernel is available as kernel patches/modules. And most of the time, if the feature is really good, it will be incorporated into the kernel its self. I'm wondering if the changes redhat plans to make are going to be big enough that they're going to fork a kernel and actually make redhat more redhat and less linux. Or if they are planning to make kernel difs? or work with the kernel development team to bring these features to all linux?
  • Then who would buy it?
    Seriously one of the main things about linux is its ability to be compatable with itself. We really don't have to pull an NT manuver with linux and have a version that is compatable with other versions (win95/98) and a version that is compatable with none (NT) there are already enough problems with some features already in some distributions.
  • from the article: "I don't think a corporation, particularly a public one, whose allegiances are only to its shareholders and its customers, can be trusted to keep software free"

    Folks, believe in it. Have all the doubts you want about corporations and the people who operate them. They are, indeed, only out to make a buck. And for some, free software is how they do it.

    A company that deals in free software would not be better off selling proprietary software, otherwise, they'd have started out doing that in the first place.

    Stop worrying. Red Hat is Red Hat, Microsoft is Microsoft. They're both out to make a buck, and they're both doing well. Neither is going to adopt the other's way of doing things.

    It's just weird that so many supporters and developers of free software are fretting about it's future, while at the same time, investors are expressing their confidence by pouring money into it.
  • That was really EGCS steering committee, but since EGCS got merged into GCC, it became GCC's ...

  • Should we fear Red Hat? (Score:3)

    by bgarcia ( 33222 ) on Friday November 19, 1999 @06:36AM (#1519072) Homepage Journal
    I'm sure we'll now see another round of everyone calling Red Hat "the next Microsoft". I was always one of the first to defend Red Hat. They have a great history of releasing everything they create under the GPL. There was absolutely no reason to expect them to do something wrong.

    But I recently discovered something that now has me wondering if this will continue to be the case.

    In Red Hat 6.1, there is a new program called the Red Hat Update Agent [redhat.com]. Basically, it appears to be a program that allows you to automatically download and optionally install updated RPM's. It sounds like a wonderful new addition, and I wanted to try it out.

    Well, you have to be a registered user. But that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. They only want registered users to access their upgrade site (priority.redhat.com). I completely understand and agree with that. This is a service after all.

    Because of this, I imagined that I (or anyone else) could simply setup one of these Update Agent servers myself. Knowing that Red Hat releases everything they create under the GPL, I started looking for the server-side CGI scripts.

    I couldn't find them.

    Now, it might just be that I didn't look hard enough. I have looked all over the FTP site, and I've tried several queries in their site's search engine. I haven't tried to actually send email to anyone at Red Hat, and I haven't actually asked anyone on a public forum (until now). But I'm still a little worried that the source for this script wasn't as easy to find as the sources for any other Red Hat software.

    So, is it available? Or is Red Hat going to keep this script secret so that only registered Red Hat users can enjoy the benefits of the Update Agent?

  • Companies are fragile endeavors. "Free software" is a social force - perhaps it's the manifestation of a collective frustration with commercial software? ;) But one way or another, as long as programmers have free time, there's nothing Redhat's shareholders, Bill Gates, or anyone else can do to stop them from coding what they feel like coding. And as long as Windows is still out there crashing desktops with abandon and wasting smart people's time all over the world (God bless it), anyone with a sense of self-respect and a modest ability to write code will work on Linux... or FreeBSD... or whatever's next.

    Barring any harrowing advances in intellectual property law, Stallman's gift, the GPL, insures that no one, no matter how eeee-vile, will ever be able to take the codebase from them.

  • I don't see why anyone is worried about Red Hat changing the GPL status of GCC. The entire existing codebase is copyrighted by the FSF. So there is no way Red Hat can alter the licensing of that. Therefore any contribution they make should also be GPL'd. Of course they may or may not assign the copyrights to the FSF, but they certainly will if they want their changes to be used. In any case, they can't change the licence without rewriting the entire existing code base.
  • Hopefully they'll put some guys on to precompiled headers and a working -frepo switch for C++.

    Long compiles are a real headache.

    Alex.

  • well maybe military force but how likely is that?
  • I don't particularly like that idea. It seems like that would increase disk space which I feel is at a premuim at the current ammount of time. Unless you are developing something with 1,000,000,000 lines of code you can easily wate or get a faster machine if you feel the need for speed.
  • well, redhat is trying to get in with corporate customers, enterprise stuff - stuff that has big load and needs crazy hardware. For most linux users this isnt going to be an issue.

    The kernel is GPL isnt it? So if it's forked, the fork will be GPL, so integrating red hats changes into the standard linux kernel even if redhat does go off on their own tangent making a specialized linux for high end servers (similar to what FreeBSD variants do - see that article about GPL project forkin that was on here a while ago). So, redhat forking the kernel wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing - just a competitive thing as it would give redhat kernels a head up on linux kernels in enterprise situations. I'm just curious as to Redhats commitment to the community - ie if they want to help the linux kernel development along in the areas of high end hardware support, or do it on their own, and try to push redhat along.

    They have a choice. Support redhat primarily with linux playing catch up in some things, or support linux primarily with Redhat being one of the dists which would benifit.

  • Anyone who's heard RMS speak on the subject of free software will be well aware that the "free" bit doesn't just refer to the fact that you don't have to pay for it - it also refers to the fact that the user is free to do as he likes with the software. Because the source is available, he can modify it, something which can't be done with close, proprietary software.

    The GPL [fsf.org] also ensures that anyone who benefits from free software also has a responsibility to ensure that others can benefit from any improvements they make to it. It's a two-way street - if I use a piece of GPL'd software, and add extra functionality, I can't exploit it commercially (i.e. sell it to people) unless I make it available under the terms of the GPL.

    Now, having said that, there is, of course, a danger that, if a piece of software was written and GPL'd by a company (or, indeed, an individual), they may decide to revoke it's free status and create a prorietary version. That is their right. There is nothing wrong in doing that, in and of itself. Obviously, there are some situations [slashdot.org] where companies have allowed something to be used for free until it becomes a de facto standard, and then started charging for it. But, with GPL'd software, things are different.

    There is a danger that a company such as Red Hat could acquire the copyright to some open source software and revoke the GPL, in an attempt to profit from a commercial version, thus forking the software. However, some companies already have both free and commercial versions of their software, and it doesn't cause many problems. Plus, the potential for backlash against Red Hat should make them careful of doing this sort of thing.

    In a sense, by going public, Red Hat has put itself in a position where it needs to be more careful about pissing us off than before. If the Linux community boycotted Red Hat, their stock price would take a serious nosedive.

    However, I am concerned that Red Hat employs (and, therefore, controls) too many of the key open source programmers. I don't think there's any ulterior or sinister motive in it, but I would much prefer if, instead of employing these coders, they allowed them to go work for, say, the FSF, and sponsored their salaries.

    That way, Red Hat would still be giving something back to the open source/free software movement, but it wouldn't actually be controlling it directly.

    Just my 0.05! ;-)

    D.
    ..is for Disastrous!

  • not forking kernel (Score:3)

    by Michael K. Johnson ( 2602 ) on Friday November 19, 1999 @06:43AM (#1519080) Homepage
    Red Hat is not creating a forked kernel; we maintain our patches as patches to Linus's kernel, allow anyone to use them, and try to push back everything that is not a customization specific to Red Hat Linux back to Linus on a time scale that he is comfortable with.

    Your differentiation between "the normal kernel dev people/the kernel development team" and Red Hat does not make a lot of sense in context, because Red Hat's kernel developers are a subset of "the normal kernel dev people" and, in fact, Alan Cox, who is one of the kernel developers who work for Red Hat, is the one who does most of the kernel patch integration work for the stable kernels for Linus.

    In any case, we actively integrate our patches with Linus's kernel. This is done individually by the developers working on their particular areas. The idea of maintaining a truly forked kernel is a nightmare to us, and no one in their right mind would want to do it.

    So we are, in this context, just another group of highly-motivated and focused kernel hackers contributing code to the Linux kernel in the normal way, which involves maintaining patches outside the Linux kernel until Linus accepts them.

    In a production context, we don't want to add patches to our official products that extend APIs beyond what Linus has blessed. The specter of us blessing an API that was subsequently cursed by the chief penguin himself would haunt us horribly.

  • There's a difference between releasing software under the GPL and not releasing software at all.

    RedHat is fully entitled to developing software that is never released and strictly used internally (and code executed on a server machine, not on your machine, could definitely be called "internal"). This code, therefore, does not need to be GPL, nor do you have any "right" to see it. You have the right to the source code of the update agent client (assuming its GPL like everything else), because that is run by you on your machine. A GPL client does not require a GPL server (look at gAIM).

    Or is Red Hat going to keep this script secret so that only registered Red Hat users can enjoy the benefits of the Update Agent?

    Why do you feel that you have the "free" right to services that others pay for?

    The code and the binaries for RedHat are "Free" (in Stallman's sense of the word). The service by which you acquire them is NOT. If someone you know does the upgrade, they can give you the RPMs all they want. RedHat does release the RPMs on their main servers for free. This is more than is necessary for compliance with GPL. They don't have to even put them on the servers at all. Simply offering to sell the media with the source codes at the cost of the media is all that is required (like when you could buy the GNU tapes, back in the early nineties; hence, the 1.95 redhat cds from third-party types).

    The Priority server and its interfaces are not for everybody. Access to them can be restricted without any violation of the GPL, nor any "bad attitudes" on their part. It is the service of speed/ease that you pay for, not the code.

    The service is why RedHat is what it is today. If you don't like the terms of service, go to another distribution vendor.

  • Are the server-side scripts distributed in any form at all? If they're just using
    some code they wrote, for their own purposes, and not distributing it, the question
    of GPL-ing it doesn't arise. If they are distributing some kind of binary then the
    GPL would oblige them to make the source available, but if they are not distributing
    anything else, why would they need to distribute the source?

    I believe Cygnus does this sort of thing for some custom GCC enhancements. These are
    made to order for customers, and the customers get it under the GPL, but nothing in
    the GPL forces either the customers or Cygnus to distribute the changes to *everybody*.
    If they do distribute, it must be under the GPL, but they need not distribute
    anything at all.
  • I'm getting really tired of this "RedHat is growing, they might become like Microsoft" nonsense. If (IMNHO, that's a big if) RHAT decides to start making things closed-source and propietary and start screwing customers like Microsoft, guess what...people will stop using RedHat leading to lower earnings, leading to a lower stock price.

    Why? Because we, the Linux community, will tell them not to user RedHat. I think what Andrew Leonard and other journalists don't quite grasp yet is the power and voice that the community has. When I tell my friends which Linux to use, I tell them RedHat. When a business person comes into one of our LUG meetings asking for advice on what distro to run on his servers, the most common response is RedHat. Would this be the same if RedHat suddenly decided to close-source parts of their distro? I strongly suspect _no_. If they did, I for one would finally make the jump over to Debian that I've been pondering for a while. I think that you'd see a lot of others doing the same. The community is the marketing force for Linux. If any Linux company does something to piss off the community, they are going to feel the repercussions.

    My 0x2 bytes worth.
    --
    Deepak Saxena

  • Thanks :) thats what i wanted to know.

    Mat.
  • When I look at this, I don't see Redhat taking over GCC, I see Redhat taking over Cygus' expertise in the embedded OS space. Most of Cygnus' revenues come from their work on embedded systems and I don't see Redhat ignoring that. There's already a lot of work on Linux in embedded systems and if Redhat's smart, they'll push that work forward. Embedded is where it's at for the future IMHO. Just a thought...
  • Ever read thestreet.com's article on the "red hots?"

    In it, Cramer said that Red Hat is one of those companies who had a good idea, convinced a few mutual funds to buy into it before the IPO, and soon EVERYONE is jumping on the Red Hat Bandwagon. the key thing is, when red hat ipoed, it essentially had no long term profit model (it was giving away software and making money from service and maintaince contracts)

    however, now with a market cap of over 7 billion, red had is using its stock to buy real money making (i.e. profitable) companies such as Cygnus to fill out its business model. it just seems a little crazy that essential we the public gave red hat this money even before it had a long term model and said use this money to buy up competition and innovation!? please comment on this.

  • up2date servers (Score:3)

    by Michael K. Johnson ( 2602 ) on Friday November 19, 1999 @07:03AM (#1519090) Homepage
    We aren't keeping it secret, we just haven't released it yet because there is no product to release. What we have is mostly code that is tied into our internal systems and is not generic. We don't have a product, just a bunch of custom code...

    So, we aren't going to keep the server functionality secret, it will just take time to create a release of the pieces you need to build a server. It will be released when it is ready.

    In the meantime, the the protocol is documented [redhat.com] to some extent.

  • Hey developers RedHat is profiting from all your hard work and you are getting little or nothing from it! ITS MICROSOFT ALL OVER AGAIN!

    Yes, RedHat is profiting from many free software developers who have contributed, but isn't the same thing done by all the Linux distributors that sell their product? It is also not like RedHat has not given back. They have GPL'd all their code. Any distribution can use the RPM if they felt like doing so. I believe many developers of software that is used by RedHat are not complaining too much. If they didn't want anyone using their software unless they profited from it, they would not have GPL'd it. Right now, everyone is lining up to kick RH becuase of something they might do. I for one will give them credit for their record of supporting free software and will withhold condemnation until they actualy do something that compromises the ideals of free software. They have not done that yet.

  • Last time I visited the cygnus home page I was delighted to find a utility called cygwin. This was a piece of software which gave me a bash prompt and GCC or my windows boxen at work. "Fantastic" I thought ... at least I can feel a little more at home on these systems. So I downloaded it felt quite happy using it... obviously not the same as *nix box but definately better than the WinNT shell. Any way, on hearing the news about the RH/Cygnus merger (buy out) I visited the cygnus site, and I now find that CygWin requires purchase. I found this strange as most of the tools GNU tools, bash, gcc etc. I couldn't find any where to download the source etc. Is this in contravention of GPL? I'm not an expert... any thoughts?
    --

    "I was either onto something, or on something!"

  • let me say this I pay for surport and equitment and not software anymore OK !

    gcc is the fundermental backbone of free software

    lets remind people what it stands for "GNU Compiler Collection"

    Yep its more than C now
    Big Boys dont like to do their dev work out in the open because they dont want to show whats going on ask marketing peoples about why, thats just a fact !
    (GPL allows for this I know)

    Big boys (and girls like HP) like gcc @ the moment beacuse it is the standard what we must not let happen is that they stop paying Cygnus to develope new GCC back ends to their hardware beacuse they are AFRAID of Redhat getting the advantage.

    If the people shy away then Cygnus will lose revenue and find most of the developers walk exiting project elsewhere and the lure of money the reason why alot of people want to work for them is that they are on the cutting edge working on things like Sony PS2 (whose dev env is linux because of gcc and more stable haha) this is why they get people.

    Without people a company is nothing !

    Cygnus has lots of effort invested in the embedded market this can not be allowed to be wasted otherwise people (partners and staff) will walk.

    Redhat had better make it clear to Cygnus partners that its work as useal and more funding to do better work and no change in direction of licenceing.

    my thoughts

    john




    a poor student @ bournemouth uni in the UK (a deltic so please dont moan about spelling but the content)
  • Does anyone have any information about what Richard Stallman thinks of the Red Hat+Cygnus merger?

    (Other then what they should call their products, I mean. ;-)
  • From http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cyg win/licensing.html [cygnus.com]:

    What are the licensing terms?

    Most of the tools are covered by the GNU GPL, some are public domain, and others have a Berkeley style copyright. To cover the GNU GPL `restrictions', the basic rule is if you give out any binaries, you must also make the source available. For the full details, be sure to read the text of the GNU General Public License (GPL) [cygnus.com].

    The Cygwin API library found in the winsup subdirectory of the source code is also covered by the GNU GPL. By default, all executables link against this library (and in the process include GPL'd Cygwin glue code). This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled executables do not make use of the Cygwin library, your compiled programs will also have to be free software distributed under the GPL with source code available to all.

    Cygnus' Native Win32 GNUPro subscriptions include a commercial license for Cygwin that is more suitable for commercial use of the Cygwin library. Pricing for a GNUPro Subscription starts at $6000 for three developers and includes GNUPro Toolkit, Developer Support, and a commercial-use license for 100 copies of the Cygwin library. Contact info@cygnus.com [mailto] for more information about this license. All other questions should be sent to the project mailing list cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com. [mailto]

  • Red Hat won't be "forced" by shareholders to switch over to developing proprietary variants of Linux, GNU, etc. for two reasons I can think of:

    One, the shareholders have already bought into the free-software (aka Open Source(TM)) model. See the RHAT prospectus and other info. That public info would have to be changed, requiring agreement among the stockholders and board members.

    In the past, GPL opponents have sometimes argued that corporations wouldn't touch GPL'ed software with a ten-foot pole (especially wouldn't distribute software under the GPL) because it'd violate the trust they have with stockholders to maximize corporate value.

    Now we have a company that makes that kind of maximization based on GPL'ed (and other freely-licensed) software part and parcel of its raison d'etre.

    In effect, this means anybody wanting to invest in a company that makes money off of proprietary software won't invest in RHAT. Without such investors, there won't be the pressure to become a proprietary software company. (Compare S.u.S.E., Caldera, etc., companies that must eternally judge which software is "worthy" as proprietary versus free.)

    Two, the only tantalizing aspect of twisting RHAT's mission is to try to extract profits by proprietizing software RHAT already owns. Such as RPM.

    Now, how valuable could a proprietary RPM or similar really be? Remember, the programmers who people point to as new RHAT employees and as those who might assist this proprietization have already established their credentials as free-software, even GPL, enthusiasts.

    For RHAT to convince them to go the proprietary route, it'd have to promise more money, fame, and/or hack value. They've already got money and fame, and the hack value of proprietary software is lower anyway. Further, the ability of such a programmer to leave RHAT and get good work outside goes down, not up, when that programmer's work becomes enshrouded by the proprietary veil.

    So, only unenlightened-suit-type programmers are likely to take that bait, meanwhile, the big-name, free-software enthusiasts already there would see what was happening and probably leave like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

    So, ultimately, for RHAT to go proprietary would be a huge mistake for its stockholders, who have a much easier approach to investing in proprietary software: buy MSFT.

    The most likely way RHAT would be abused to injure our community would be if, say, MSFT bought it up wholesale and shut down as much competitive free-software stuff as it could. How successful could that strategy really be? Very Un, IMO, for many reasons, such as the above, and here we can be grateful for RHAT's insane market cap. If MSFT couldn't do it in one fell swoop now, how could a loosely organized bunch of RHAT stockholders manage to do it down the road? I don't see it.

  • Actually, I think I do understand the power of the community -- at least I think that's the way I've been reporting about this for at least two years. But I also think that we haven't yet seen the true test of community power vs. shareholder capitalism. And I think it's really worth keeping as a close an eye as possible on events as they happen.
  • "The only way to have people not pirate your stuff is if it's pretty dull stuff that no one cares about. I dare to bet that no one has pirated Mathmatica or Maple for linux to a warez site."

    I have seen Maple and Mathematica for linux on warez listings, hell I even saw the iso for Redhat on one (haha). I bought my Maple V, it comes with both MicroSoft Windows version and Linux version on the CD.
  • I agree that we haven't seen the true power struggle between the free software community and Red Hat shareholders. I think we won't see that struggle for many years down the road. Once the founders of the company, who are strongly committed to their ideals for the company, leave due to retirement, or death, or whatever, the newer management/programmers won't necessarily have the same committment to free software. I could envision down the road, where there have been serveral management turnovers, that the management would have no personal identification with free software, and will do whatever is necessary to make a buck in the short run. This could also happen sooner rather than later if the economy of the nation or the company by itself gets into dire straits and drastic choices are needed to save the company in the short term.

    I don't think there is anything to fear from them right now, but in the future they could look like a vastly different company.
  • This sounds like a load of FUD to me. In fact the article just about admits as much. As it says at the end (and keeps emphasising in other words all the way through)
    "So, in theory, there may be a problem. In reality, nothing to get agitated about, at least not yet."
    So they know there isn't a problem, but they wanted to write a story with a new angle on the takeover anyway?
  • I found the following piece amusing:

    Any code that has at one time been protected by the GPL will still always be freely available, but new versions of that code could conceivably be released under different terms, even, potentially, as proprietary, closed-source software. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is considered by most programmers to be highly unlikely to perpetrate any such license changes for the software to which it holds the copyright.

    It is simply impossible for the FSF to distribute proprietary code. If you have ever assigned any code to the FSF you would know that the assignment contract [cygnus.com] you sign obligates the FSF to always distribute the assigned code and any code based on your work as Free Software, although they might not distribute it under (a specific version of) the GPL.
  • Red Hat won't be "forced" by shareholders to switch over to developing proprietary variants of Linux, GNU, etc. for two reasons I can think of:

    A third reason is that Redhat has only sold about 10% of the company stock on the open market. The same people who founded RedHat still own the vast majority of RedHat stock.

  • Not. Cygwin does not REQUIRE purchase. A newer version is available for purchase. I just went to sourceware.cygnus.com and beta 20.1 is still available for download, for free, as always.

    In addition, if you click on the links to each of the projects on sourceware, there is a nav bar on the left with a section called "Download". I don't think you were looking very hard.

    At any rate, once again, "free software doesn't mean free as in 'free beer'; it's free as in 'freedom'." Read the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html). One is, in fact, allowed to charge money for software.

    And as long as I'm repeating things that really shouldn't have to be, Michael Tiemann is not the CEO of Cygnus, it's currently Alex Daly until the merger occurs (that was actually a shot at the author of the Salon article on the merger).
  • Wanna bet it's *all* copyrighted by the FSF? I submitted a small patch once, and it was accepted, and I never signed any forms.

    I would bet there's small chunks of code copyrighted by each of a few hundred hackers, most of them also under GPL.

    This isn't a problem, as long as the whole thing stays under the GPL, but at this point, I don't think there exists *anyone* with the authority to change the licensing.
  • I don't think this is fair. The fears are real, the article explores them, and with a reasonable caveat, puts them to rest. No FUD, no groundless Redhat bashing.
  • The idea that any open source code might be taken proprietary in a way that stymies the community is unfounded. A fork will instantly appear, like in the case of Xfree86 after the Open Group modified their copyright permission notice for X.

    But don't forget the dreaded "network effects", the phenonemon that tends to restrict people's choice in the workplace to a single standard. I think it ironic that this new kind of dominant player arises in the computing world so shortly after we've all felt the relief of the former giant being reined in. But it makes sense that it would happen, since venture capitalists main criteria for investing in firms (and buying up firms) is what they call "unfair advantage". Usually it is patents or specialized know-how. But there is one opportunity in the open-source world to create such a behemoth, and RedHat/Cygnus is gunning for it.

    It is doubtful in 15 years time RedHat/Cygnus will be broken up because they became a monopoly that retarded innovation in the computer world. I think they are smart enough to avoid the breaking the law. But they could have a lot of power over our computing future.

    Here is a hypothetical scenario: what if RedHat/Cygnus makes the decision to focus their limited resources for backward compatibility testing of gcc to only that software found in the RedHat Linux distribution? And what if they decide to start deprecating features of certain languages (i.e. disallowing pre-standard C++). Do you think this would be fair? Do you think they might do it anyways?

    As their position with respect to the open source community grows I will be watching how they continue to perform their important role of stewardship of the FSF's programming utilities. I second the comment someone made above of asking them to support gcc and gdb developers on the FSF's payroll instead of their own. Richard Stallman is the one monopolist I can put my trust in for this software, because he has more than earned it.

  • Hmmmm.... I didn't spot the download link... and I specifically looked for it ... anyways... and when I said free I meant free as in speech ... the GPL doesn't prevent you from charging but it does say that Source Code should be available... anywho thanks Steve
    --

    "I was either onto something, or on something!"

  • In the meantime, the the protocol is documented to some extent.
    Wonderful! The code isn't nearly as important as the protocol.

    I'm sorry I ever had doubts about the integrity of Red Hat! I give you my most humble apologies!

  • Would be a fork on gcc and glibc. The comunity would loses the expertise of gcc developers.

    However how long it would take before the so called expertise is attained again by the comunity? We're talking about years? Months? With the open source push, I do not think t would be too long after a fork before we have a decent compiler again.

  • I think your assertion that Red Hat is standard 'Linux'and your conclusion that Red Hat will become a monopoly, via network effects, is premature.

    Perhaps. I would like to see diversity and competition take a permanent hold on computing, but the ideological and business forces that push for a single winner are still in place (at least in the United States).

    the moment a more useful Linux distro appears, everyone who needs to jump ship will simply jump ship

    Not if your employer/customer/co-workers require software delivered in the latest version of Brand X binary packaging, and only the latest version of Brand X binary packaging. Jumping between distros might be simple for a home user who wants to experiment with the latest one, but other things have to be taken into account in a work situation.

  • Everybody here is talking about whether future versions of gcc get to be proprietary or not. I don't see that happening as that would seriously backfire on whoever tries to pull such a stunt.

    What I wonder is what the Linux community gains by the Redhat takeover of Cygnus. Cygnus was already an open source company and seemed to do very well by it's own. I think it would be cool if Redhat used it's financial postition to acquire companies that are not yet in the open source camp. Currently, one of the major mancos of Linux is the lack of games. I think it would be very cool if Redhat aquired a big game company and started releasing some major titles for Linux. I think there's (real) money to be made here for Redhat and it would give us the users more things to do (not necessarely usefull things...) on our beloved operating system.

  • RedHat is fully entitled to developing software that is never released and strictly used internally
    Absolutely. I totally agree. However, Red Hat has stated in the past that they will release all their software under the GPL. I guess I was just trying to hold their feet to the fire. Turns out that I was off base, and it wasn't necessary.
    Why do you feel that you have the "free" right to services that others pay for?
    I don't want access to the service. I wanted access to the code so that others (me) can provide the same service (in my lan, to support a bunch of machines internally, for example).

    But as Michael Johnson has explained, the code is pretty much tied to thier internal systems, and thus probably wouldn't be too useful in and of itself. But they have made the protocol available, which is just as good as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I wanted the service for free. I don't. I just want the code (or the protocols).

  • I have submitted fixes to Cygnus also. I was told that the paperwork assigning copyright (to FSF or Cygnus) is not necessary for such small patches; mine were usually only 2-3 lines each. However, at least one outside developer on the mailing list was asked to send papers, since he submitted some substantially larger (30+ lines) patches. There seems to be a legal grey area on what amount of code they can incorporate under "fair use" without a copyright assignment, but I'm sure their lawyers would have asked you for paperwork if they thought they might someday have problems defending themselves from you in a lawsuit.

    So, my guess is that neither of us has legal standing to sue if somebody ripped off GCC. At least I made it into the Changelog, though!


  • I have thought about it. You, on the other hand, obviously haven't. No wonder you're posting as an AC - I'd be ashamed to reveal my identity if I was as clueless as you.

    There is no "campaign". I'm merely pointing out that Red Hat would be vulnerable to bad PR, and the worst PR it could suffer from would be the news that the Linux community were shunning it.

    In other words, you implying that I've got a "campaign" is like saying that I'm waging a war against China merely because I state that it's theoretically possible to launch a cyber-attack on them.

    This is the age of spin. If you think that all Red Hat are worried about is how many boxes they shift, then you really don't have a clue. Bad PR can kill companies stone dead. In the volatile climate in which companies like Red Hat operate, characterised by low equity liquidity and an ignorant market (in terms of shareholders - i.e. the day traders), a well-coordinated anti-Red Hat campaign would have the Board reaching for the rubber underwear.

    The Linux and Internet sectors has always been characterised by the fact that it bucked the standard commercial model. Have you seen how much money some of these companies are losing? Yet they're amongst the biggest companies in the world, measured by equity value. Don't you remember how eBay's stock price dropped when it was hacked earlier this year? Has it ever occured to you that MagicFX had a motive other than getting his name in the papers?

    Finally, and most crucially, I have been responsible for making decisions or recommendations which led to the purchase of Red Hat products. What's more, I will make those sort of decisions again in the future. Behind this handle sits the CTO of an Internet startup. I am exactly the sort of customer Red Hat would be worried about losing.

    I think you've managed to reach the stage where you can't be any more wrong. Well done!

    D.
    ..is for Degenerate.

  • Troll

    Bad Command Or File Name
  • > Wanna bet it's *all* copyrighted by the FSF? I
    > submitted a small patch once, and it was
    > accepted, and I never signed any forms.

    The policy is that contributions of less than 10 lines of code are too small to fall under copyright law, and thus does not need papers. I don't know US law in details, but that would certainly be true under Danish law. Also, sometimes the maintainers rewrite patches rather than ask for papers.
  • -frepo works fine for me on Solaris, but not on any other platforms where I have tried it (aix, hp/ux and cygwin). The official policy of the gcc maintainers is that -frepo is depreciated, and linker smartness is the way to go.

    Precompiled were implemented by Michael Thiemann at Cygnus for Corel, but apparently the gcc maintainers doesn't like the implementation, so it may never reach the public distribution.
  • I disagree that interest in gaming is dying out... Just watch the continual refinement in gaming hardware, not to mention the tons of cash being poured into game development. The playstation 2 is generating a lot of interest because it is new, not necesarrily because it will kill pc gaming. I think they will both survive, most pc gamers I know also use a playstation/dreamcast/n64/whatever
    treke

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.

Close