In article 1vaoeoINNg17@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu, kem@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) writes:
quoted text
>I've always been under the impression that a primary goal of Linux was to
>provide a replacement for DOS, NT, and SunOS, etc.  I would guess most users
>want it to be.  If that is not the goal of Linux, would it be so terrible to
>have a company create a proprietary version that attempts to be a stable,
>standard, supported version to encourage ports of commercial software,
>with a real marketing budget to properly go up against the big boys.
>SLS/NT or something?

The premise is untrue: Linus intended Linux to be a lightweight UNIX-like
operating system with the complete source code available for study by
interested parties.

The GPL does not prevent anyone from selling Linux or a derivative or from charging
anything that they feel is adequate recompense for the effort they have spent
on marketing, packaging, support etc.  The GPL merely ensures that they make
the source code available and allow anyone who purchases the product to copy
it freely.  The effect of the GPL is to put a floor under the amount of added
value in a commercialized Linux: the glossy manuals or hot-line support have
to be good enough that people think that they are worth buying.


        Chris Flatters
        cflatter@nrao.edu