OT: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption

[Les Mikesell]

On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 16:32, Craig White wrote:

> > > No, that should be a different topic: How the GPL sabotages open
> > > source adoption.  The GPL restrictions have done more to
> > > maintain the Microsoft monopoly than any Microsoft employee.
> > > Even when a vendor tries their best to supply drivers it
> > > doesn't work out very well and they aren't accepted in the
> > > distributions.
> > 
> > Well said, Les.

> there are many forms of open source licenses that aren't GPL and a
> vendor can supply drivers using a form more suitable to their liking if
> they wish...I guess I missed Les' point.

The point of the GPL is to make it impossible to combine
GPL'd code and code under any different restrictions.  There
are many necessary pieces of code that exist, and can only
exist only under different restrictions.  Examples would be
patented code or code needed in device drivers that a
hardware vendor has obtained from third parties under
non-GPL licensing.  That means that to use those things
you can never use a GPL kernel that by definition excludes
them.  Linux has held out the promise of a loophole which
I think has had a lot to do with the acceptance it has
managed to achieve in the form of binary kernel modules.
But, Linus's refusal to freeze an interface and RedHat's
refusal to distribute them makes it impractical even for
the vendors that would like to provide Linux support to
actually do anything useful.

Consider that it's purely by accident and probably illegal
in most places that you can even play current DVD's under
Linux at all - and it isn't likely to happen again with
the next generation - and you see why Microsoft has had
it easy keeping their monopoly.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell at gmail.com