Great article. Thanks. I think I'm beginning to understand why big companies such as Adobe don't write for Linux -- because under the GNU licensing agreement they would not be able to charge for their work. Am I right?
Under the GPL, the code has to be open source. You can't exactly charge for a program when you can find the source at other locations. But if you just want to view Adobe files, xpdf and gv should be able to open most of them with no problems.
Nope. There are commercial products available for Linux. Oracle is probably the best know one, though Adobe is also coming out with a Linux product.
Writing a commercial application that does not use GPL'ed code means you do not have to distribute the source code. Hence, it can be as proproetary as you like.
Most commercial linux products do rely on the LGPL license for their linkages to GPL'ed libraries. This license is different in that you don't have to GPL your own code to use a LGPL library.
You got it. Check the top 100 selling software apps at Amazon.com, not one Linux application is listed.
Golden Eagle: You got it. Check the top 100 selling software apps at Amazon.com, not one Linux application is listed.
As appears to be his job, GE is again being deceptive. Developers are perfectly free to write and sell proprietary software that runs on Linux. There aren't many end-user commercial programs for several reasons (one of which is that the freely available applications are quite good), but the GPL has nothing to do with it.
Oracle puts code out that runs on Linux but it is not GPL. Adobe could write for Linux and keep its code to itself so long as it did not use GPL code within its application. As long as you dont (a) put GPL code in your application, or (b) statically link to GPL code you can write a closed source app for Linux.
Oracle, Veritas, BEA, EMC, VMWare and others all write closed source and very expensive application that are closed source..
Then, Adobe got in bed with Microsoft with the development of Open Type. Viola! No more Linux development. Of course this is just a coincidence...
Wrong.
It's because they, as a company, have large experience in a market where almost nobody competes directly with them. Entering the Linux market means being competitive in a way Adobe can not (because they have optimized through the years in very different ways).
Its only way into that market would be starting from near to zero, and given the choice, they prefer to stay where they've already settled.
GPL is not the only licensing scheme available. There are several other standard options which are popular and allow for the selling of software. You can even make money under the GPL by selling services.