Hi,
I think the cynicism is pretty valid and okay too, but I was speaking more generally about the actual legal specifics. Maybe what I was really talking about was intellectual property.
I do think if this sets a precedent for companies having to fork over licensing fees, it will cause business entities to seriously reconsider their investment in Linux which in some cases might result in switching to a BSD-based solution.
I would certainly hope that companies would not switch to BSD simply because they see it as being a lower-profile-therefore-safer option, as I think most of us would agree they are serious platforms/workhorses up to the most demanding of tasks.
As a side note, Linux certainly has made inroads through--what some would say-- is a chaotic committal process. However, when you compare that with what model the BSD systems have had in terms of release engineering/long lineage/stability etc (not to mention the fact they are complete operating systems in and of themselves and not just a kernel +packages), I would hope that companies would take note of these 'strengths' in addition to the good licensing model. I should mention that I am also speaking very 'generally' about Linux as well: there are of course some great, stable, distributions like Gentoo or even RHEL etc even though, yes I am biased to BSD : P
But yes, I think the licensing model would present some serious obstacles to patent trolls for example, but maybe I am wrong. I suppose we would only be able to find out if BSD somehow exploded onto the scene as Linux has, thereby attracting the vultures (read: Lawyers).
|