I understand your position. I was taking the perspective of a corporation - they MUST protect their customers, especially when threatened. But how can HP avoid self-destruction from defending opne-source against SCO? If SCO's FUD makes a judge and jury decide that HP is to blame, then they will be liable for things out of their control.
I don't expect HP to allow this to happen. They must limit their liability, as every corporation does to save itself. You are right that they come off as noble in the news. They planned it that way. This is the behavior of corporations. They fight to survive, like any other individual. They're only defending themselves, basically, and in that you were correct as well. I just don't think that you can blame a creature for following its behavoral patterns. This is what large corporations do. It is neither noble nor evil. It is the only course of action.
I see more clearly your perspective, and it makes a lot of sense. I failed to recognize the true spirit of the GPL. It's hard for me to imagine something as free as GPL being stifled by HP. I don't think I really understood the freedom. I commend you for your contributions to the open-source movement, and humbly apologize for any ill will I may have appeared to show.
I think I worded several statements in my last post poorly, and because of that, it's hard to understand what I mean. I meant that HP needed to clear up its role in its press releases. I also think that they must tip their hats and acknowledge the bigger movement that flows behind them, in GPL, BSD, apache, et al, licenses. It should be a matter of pride, and not shame, that they receive open-source. It should be shown as a gift to our peoples.
Your rights are being trampled by SCO directly, and I can see how HP's actions are insulting to you. Forgive my lack of insight.
btw, I'm only 22, so I know jack sh!t about unix's trials and tribulations.
__________________
It's never too late to be something great.
|
Threaded Mode
