[ic] Re: AOL in negotiation to buy Red Hat

[Scott Underwood]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Barry Treahy, Jr. wrote:

> Scott Underwood wrote:
> 
> >Does this mean if they release code on one product they are Open Source? 
> >Remember Open Source is an idea as much as it describes the source code. 
> >
> >I don't think AOL embraces the idea or this server would be licensed under 
> >GPL not Mozilla. AOL is the epitomy of capatalism which runs contrary to 
> >the idea of an Open Source ideal.
> >
> "epitome of capitalism," boy Scott, you make that sound so nasty but 
isn't that why we are all here, to develop  web based e-commerce to 'make 
money?'  That is capitalism and there is no thing wrong with that.  Though 
I'm grateful for free software, selling soft ware is no different than 
selling shirts, shoes, CD's, or car which is  the exchange of a good or 
service which has value to someone else for something of value, typically currency.

I don't mean capatalism is bad in itself. AOL's brand (most huge 
companies) is bad. You can't really compare AOL with any of us. Open 
Source is also not about free software.


> 
> 

Lets remember that regardless of what the lice nsing policy is, it does 
take resources to develop software.  Redhat wou ldn't exist to support 
Linux and IC if they couldn't show a profit in o ne manner or another and 
I'm not attempting to suggest that MV or IC would  not exist today without 
RH, but Mike needs to keep food on the table too  and if the direct or 
indirect results of his MV/IC efforts didn't pay  the bills, it would 
probably not have become the product it is today...

I have a feeling that IC and linux would do fine without redhat or aol. It 
might not progress as fast but it wouldn't go away, actually because of 
us. When we can make policy on a country or world basis we can compare 
ourselves to AOL.

> 
> Barry
>   
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Scott Underwood

"-- challenging authority and insisting that it justify itself -- 
    are appropriate at all levels."

	--Noam Chomsky