What products have HP chosen an open source license for?
As I said earlier, for the most part I enjoyed Martin’s talk at Linux World Sydney and regarded it pretty much as being good solid common sense. One thing he did say, however, has been ticking over in the back of my mind for a bit.
I can’t remember exactly what the wording was, but it was something like
If HP has not seen a need to use anything but the GPL, why should you?
The context of the statement was that there are currently too many Open Source licenses (which I would have to agree with).
Now, to me, this statement/question only makes sense if HP has actually been the entity who has assigned an open source license to a product that they have released.
This is not meant as a cynical dig, but rather an honest question that I seriously don’t know the answer to, and would like to.
What software has HP released that fits this criteria? Have they actually taken some of their Intellectual Property and created a new Open Source product that required them to choose a license. Obviously they do a lot of work on existing open source projects that already have a license assigned to them; but those have already had the license chosen for them. I’m interested in open source projects initiated by HP.
If they have, fine and dandy. They have the high ground to be able to make that statement.
On the other hand, if they have not, then it’s a pretty meaningless statement to make.
So, help me. Has HP authored a resonably sized (or indeed any sized) Open Source product that would have required them to make a decision about which licence to apply?
As an aside and a rather belated response to Martin’s parting light hearted dig to me on the first day of the exhibition “When are you going to GPL Solaris?” I should simply have replied “When are you going to GPL OpenView?”. (I’m actually very impressed with that product and have been for some time). Don’t you just wish that you could think of the right response to a light hearted dig in under 10 seconds?