Which distro for the enterprise now?

On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 14:46, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2004, at 1:08 PM, Craig White wrote:
> But the GPL allows exactly that the code can become "the provincial
> domain of any corporation , large or small, public, private or
> non-profit" or any other organization.
---
until it passes beyond their borders, this is true. But in a larger
sense, I think this is motivation for large companies to use the
software AND if they decide that this wasn't a permanent fork, they
would certainly contribute to the code base.
---
> You, among others, have softly
> chided me for being naive enough to ever believe otherwise, though you
> did it with some sympathy.
---
I don't recall chiding you about GPL licensing - I think you are way
more knowledgable than I am about the licensing programs. I struggle to
understand the principles behind them as opposed to you, who is
concerned with the code itself.
---
> So to set the record straight, the GPL imposes *no* obligations on any
> corporate entity to make derived programs available for use, study or
> modification no matter how widely those programs my be deployed. So if
> you are contemplating an 'open source' release, consider the RPL. It is
> much better at keeping derived works in conformance with the free
> software definition.
---
again not true - GPL does impose restrictions if the code is transferred
to someone outside of the company and its internal usage.

I recognize what you are getting at with RPL and that is provincial in
another way, provincial for the coders themselves - that is not a bad
thing and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this. I only wonder if
the RPL might cause corporations NOT to get involved with projects that
involve this license because they are obligated to release any and all
changes that they make for internal use (at least, that was my
comprehension of the RPL license as you described it).

Craig