On 10/19/2011 10:07 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Phong Nguyen<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>
>> What does Microsoft gain by locking down a PC? Casual users are not going to install alternative operating systems anyways. Technically proficient users will only be encouraged to find ways to break the secure boot process (for a real example, consoles, and the debacle over Sony's Playstation 3) - and that is *not* in Microsoft's interest.
>
> They gain DRM. This is critical to them and other companies that want
> the software to run only how and when they want it to run, and the
> data to be accessible only how and when they want to provide it. It's
> understandable, but the GPL at the core of Linux releases and the core
> features such as the kernel and glibc were designed to allow and
> encourage open use and development.
>
> We using Scientific Linux owe considerable thanks to our favorite
> upstream vendor and their cooperation with these goals that allow us
> this open use.
>
[snip]

Actually, we own considerable thanks to the GPL as well as the Linux 
license that FORCES Red Hat (and other Linux environment vendors, but 
not application vendors that run on Linux, such as Bibble or PDFStudio) 
to release the full source code -- including any modifications as well 
as the code used to build the full source or parts thereof.  Although 
each distribution source makes custom modifications into the actual 
layout of files as well as the build process, because the full source is 
available, it is possible to build the entire environment.

For Red Hat or any other for-profit entity to release the source were it 
not required, there would have to be a profit reason -- including market 
share.  Thus, Sun bought the intellectual property of StarOffice, 
evolved it into OpenOffice, and released the source while still 
providing paid professional (not just volunteer) development and 
maintenance staff/support.  Why?  Because Sun originally wanted Solaris 
on technical workstations originally on Sparc CPUs (not IA-32) and had 
to have something to work with MS Office suite files -- the format of 
which was reverse engineered (in the USA, under the Quattro Pro vs. 
Lotus 123 decision).  This Oracle/Sun market share decision is one from 
which the entire open systems community benefited.

Red Hat does benefit from CentOS, SL, etc., because the user base helps 
debug the EL distribution in environments that otherwise might not be 
reached through the licensed-for-fee RHEL licensees.

But -- I personally doubt it is the generosity or societal conscience of 
Red Hat or any other for-profit business -- rather it is the legally 
binding requirements of the GPL, etc.  Profit-driven business decisions, 
not altruism.

Yasha Karant