I know, obviously since that was my point, you were the one denying IBM ever did such till just recently.
I care about America, but...
But you have what you consider more important concerns, such as getting free software from foreigners.
No, I said that they jumped on the bandwagon just recently. They distributed source in the sixties, but stopped doing so a long time ago and, to the best of my knowledge, have not opened up their commercial software. What they are doing is funding mostly (if not entirely) pre-existing open source projects in hopes that it will defeat Microsoft. IBM itself has no allegiance to open source software. They would not be using it now if they did not believe it would further their ends. Moreover, the fact that IBM at one time packaged source with the end product does not mean that they originated the practice (as you seem so intent on "proving"). Finally, there is a world of difference between what happened in the sixties and what is happening now. In the scenario you brought up, I would buy software and get the source. Notice, though, I paid to get the source. With most modern software, I pay to get binaries and could never get the source (the exception to this rule being, of course, OSS).
But you have what you consider more important concerns, such as getting free software from foreigners.
I know you refuse to believe this, but a free market is an American principle. I like Linux because, IMHO, it is a superior product to Windows or Mac. If there were a reasonably priced alternative to Linux that I liked better, I would buy it.