UnitedLinux controversy

[jabr at blu.org (John Abreau)]

I posted the following on Slashdot after reading the discussion about
RMS' objection to UnitedLinux's per-seat licensing:

Missing the point? (Score:1)
by abreauj on 05:55 AM June 1st, 2002 (#3621989)
(User #49848 Info | http://www.blu.org)

I finished reading the comments here, and I didn't see any mention of 
what I think the main point is.

As I understood it, UnitedLinux is being billed as a "standard" platform 
for commercial software vendors to port their software to, so they don't 
have to worry about file location and library verion number compatibility.

It would appear to me that Caldera and the others want to ensure that 
commercial applications will explicitly depend on the "naughty bits" 
that can't be redistributed, with the goal that these applications won't 
work properly (or at all, perhaps) on any distribution that doesn't adopt 
the UL brand with its per-seat licenses and all.

It's not about more choices, it's actually about less choices. UnitedLinix 
looks to me like a blatant attempt to establish vendor lock-in for the 
whole
commercial application market. 


-- 
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix 
ICQ 28611923 / AIM abreauj / JABBER jabr at jabber.org / YAHOO abreauj
Email jabr at blu.org / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9
PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99

"The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 344 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.blu.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020601/89ef4e0b/attachment.sig>