Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Brandon Vanevery
386BSD has better TCP/IP, for now.
Linux is far less resource-hungry, due to shared libraries.
386BSD fixes come out slowly, all at once. Linux fixes come out quickly,
a little bit at a time.
Neither free unix has 24-bit color support. Both will get it at the same
time if it comes available, as both use XFree86.
Snittily Graphics Consulting Services makes 24-bit X drivers for S3 928
based boards, for several commercial unixes.
Commercial unixes are all very expensive. The cheapest is the new Univel
UNIXware - $250 for user version, $695 for the developer version. All
others are well over $1000. It's really rather silly, I think.
SCO Unix has been recommended to me as "the best" of the commercial
systems, by a few folks.
That's about all the info I have. Look to the FAQs for more precise
breakdowns of the commercial stuff.
Cheers,
Brandon
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Marc Wandschneider
>
>SCO Unix has been recommended to me as "the best" of the commercial
>systems, by a few folks.
I had the pleasure of using this this product last summer, and
have slowly come to the conclusion that anybody who finds this a superior
product has either never used ANY other UNIX before, is high, or finds
AIX a close second.
Never before have I used a UNIX so lacking in features, so annoying
to use (even for a SVR? system), and so difficult to get the hang of.
However, I've been weaned exclusively on SunOS, with HP/UX and AIX
as occasional experiences.
Toodlepip!
Marc 'em.
--
st...@cs.mcgill.ca McGill P.O.W Camp "Oh crap---It's not
Marc Wandschneider Montreal, CANADA random enough"
386bsd---Free UNIX! ftp agate.berkeley.edu /pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1
Ever wonder what Wonder Woman wonders about?
Brandon S. Allbery
In article <1993Apr16.1...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> st...@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc Wandschneider) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.2...@samba.oit.unc.edu> Brandon....@launchpad.unc.edu (Brandon Vanevery) writes:
>>SCO Unix has been recommended to me as "the best" of the commercial
>>systems, by a few folks.
>
> I had the pleasure of using this this product last summer, and
>have slowly come to the conclusion that anybody who finds this a superior
>product has either never used ANY other UNIX before, is high, or finds
>AIX a close second.
Thank you. I'd been wondering what drugs his informant was doing :-) Mind
you, my background is almost exclusively System V --- and the SVR3.1 systems I
worked with for several years before encountering SCO "Unix" were far, far
better than that purported SVR3.2. Not to mention far more compatible with
both System V and (to a limited extent: no networking with it) BSD software.
(Unfortunately, it predated POSIX, so there was no compatibility there.)
Nicely packaged, expensive spam is still spam, folks.... :-)
> Never before have I used a UNIX so lacking in features, so annoying
>to use (even for a SVR? system), and so difficult to get the hang of.
As far as "annoying to use", that's clearly a matter of one's experience. I
started with System III and moved on to System V when it came out; SunOS4 has
been a real "trip", and I'm looking forward to our installing Solaris 2.1 so
the system will behave as God intended :-) :-) :-) [and I say again for the
humor-impaired: :-) ] Let's leave the *ix religious wars to the small-
brained, shall we?
++Brandon
--
Brandon S. Allbery b...@kf8nh.wariat.org
It's not too late to turn back from the "Gates" of Hell...
Linux: the FREE 32-bit operating system, available NOW. Why waaaaaait for NT?
Charles Hannum
In article <1993Apr15.2...@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Brandon....@launchpad.unc.edu (Brandon Vanevery) writes:
>
>
> Linux is far less resource-hungry, due to shared libraries.
For now.
--
\ / Charles Hannum, myc...@ai.mit.edu
/\ \ PGP public key available on request. MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
Scheme White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
HJ Lu
>
>In article <1993Apr15.2...@samba.oit.unc.edu>
>Brandon....@launchpad.unc.edu (Brandon Vanevery) writes:
>>
>> 386BSD has better TCP/IP, for now.
>>
>> Linux is far less resource-hungry, due to shared libraries.
>
>For now.
>
Linux will use whatever better in 386bsd. But 386bsd has to
start from scratch, unless you do it yourself. For example,
387 emulation and C library.
H.J.
Nate Williams
And then Linux and the GNU folks will take what 386BSD has done and
restrict it. Now, isn't that nice....... taking my work and restricting
it. I always thought that was awful kind of them. (NOT!)
Nate
Who really likes GNU utilities, but hates the way alot of folks take
other peoples programs and code, fix them and then don't make the
changes 'completely redistributable;
--
os...@terra.oscs.montana.edu | Still trying to find a good reason for
na...@cs.montana.edu | these 'computer' things. Personally,
work #: (406) 994-4836 | I don't think they'll catch on -
home #: (406) 586-0579 | Don Hammerstrom
Charles Hannum
> from scratch, unless you do it yourself. For example, 387 emulation
> and C library.
Why are you trying to confuse the issue? Yes, Linux will (and has)
taken things from 386BSD when it's convenient. Likewise, 386BSD will
(and has) taken things from Linux.
You make it sound like 386BSD *can't* use code from Linux. This is
bogus. It's just very carefully chosen which parts are worthwhile,
which aren't, and which need to be redone.
Marc WANDSCHNEIDER
>
>You make it sound like 386BSD *can't* use code from Linux. This is
>bogus. It's just very carefully chosen which parts are worthwhile,
>which aren't, and which need to be redone.
>
On this note, I'm curious to hear if there is any plan to make
shared libraries standard in 386bsd...? I have seen one patch for this
out on the net, but I don't know if many people are using it, and if
wfj plans on adding this feature in 0.2 (official)...
Anybody a little more clued in on this one than I?
toodlepip!
Marc 'em.
HJ Lu
>In article <1993Apr17....@serval.net.wsu.edu> h...@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (HJ Lu) writes:
>>In article <1qo0lq$1h...@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu> myc...@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1993Apr15.2...@samba.oit.unc.edu>
>>>Brandon....@launchpad.unc.edu (Brandon Vanevery) writes:
>>>>
>>>> 386BSD has better TCP/IP, for now.
>>>>
>>>> Linux is far less resource-hungry, due to shared libraries.
>>>
>>>For now.
>>>
>>
>>Linux will use whatever better in 386bsd. But 386bsd has to
>>start from scratch, unless you do it yourself. For example,
>>387 emulation and C library.
>
>And then Linux and the GNU folks will take what 386BSD has done and
>restrict it. Now, isn't that nice....... taking my work and restricting
>it. I always thought that was awful kind of them. (NOT!)
>
>
>Nate
>
>Who really likes GNU utilities, but hates the way alot of folks take
>other peoples programs and code, fix them and then don't make the
>changes 'completely redistributable;
If everybody did that, the GNU copyright would not be a problem. Is
your purpose to let someone make "completely non-redistributable"
stuff? Am I missing something?
You have gave us freedom (Thanks). We have made our decision and you
can get our code for free with some reasonable conditions. Why do you
complain? That is what you ask for. Please blame it on yourself. If
someone did something to your code and didn't tell your about that
or wanted to charge you $$$$ or didn't want you to give it away to
others, would you complain?
H.J.
HJ Lu
|>
|> In article <1993Apr17....@serval.net.wsu.edu>
|> h...@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (HJ Lu) writes:
|> >
|> > Linux will use whatever better in 386bsd. But 386bsd has to start
|> > from scratch, unless you do it yourself. For example, 387 emulation
|> > and C library.
|>
|> Why are you trying to confuse the issue? Yes, Linux will (and has)
|> taken things from 386BSD when it's convenient. Likewise, 386BSD will
|> (and has) taken things from Linux.
|>
|> You make it sound like 386BSD *can't* use code from Linux. This is
No. I am trying to say the "official" 386bsd release is not willing
to use GNU copyrighted code. Of courses, you can make/release your
own 386bsd :-). I know you have done that for yourself.
|> bogus. It's just very carefully chosen which parts are worthwhile,
^^^^^^^^^^^^
That means no GNU copyrighted code in the "official" 386bsd release. BTW,
I'd love to see the "official" 386bsd release uses GNU copyrighted code.
|> which aren't, and which need to be redone.
|>
H.J.
Nate Williams
HJ - start from scratch, unless you do it yourself. For example,
HJ - 387 emulation and C library.
Nate - And then Linux and the GNU folks will take what 386BSD has done and
Nate - restrict it. Now, isn't that nice....... taking my work and restricting
Nate - it. I always thought that was awful kind of them. (NOT!)
Nate -
Nate - Who really likes GNU utilities, but hates the way alot of folks take
Nate - other peoples programs and code, fix them and then don't make the
Nate - changes 'completely redistributable;
HJ -
HJ - If everybody did that, the GNU copyright would not be a problem. Is
HJ - your purpose to let someone make "completely non-redistributable"
HJ - stuff? Am I missing something?
No, my purpose is to make 386BSD completely re-distrubutable, with NO
strings attached. That means Sun, DEC, HP, Ren and Stimpy, or whoever
can take this code and sell a binary copy of it. The GPL does not allow
this.
HJ - You have gave us freedom (Thanks). We have made our decision and you
HJ - can get our code for free with some reasonable conditions. Why do you
HJ - complain? That is what you ask for. Please blame it on yourself. If
HJ - someone did something to your code and didn't tell your about that
HJ - or wanted to charge you $$$$ or didn't want you to give it away to
HJ - others, would you complain?
No, I would not complain. I believe the work should be in the same vein
as it was distributed. COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY free. Not copylefted,
which places restrictions on its distribution.
The original BSD copyright has been this way, but unfortunately a group of
people take the code, fix the code, and then place restrictions on it.
Nate
Nate Williams
>na...@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes:
>>And then Linux and the GNU folks will take what 386BSD has done and
>>restrict it. Now, isn't that nice....... taking my work and restricting
>>it. I always thought that was awful kind of them. (NOT!)
>
>this. As far as I know, nothing that Linux or GNU (which have little
>to do with each other, except that Linux uses a lot of GNU programs)
>has imported has been made available under a different copyright
>notice than what the copyright holder (typically the author) has
>agreed to. Anything else would be illegal.
The stdio code that HJ has done lots of work on(and I commend him on
it). The original code, before he fixed some of the bugs, was originally
distributed by AT&T, but HJ's fixes are now GPL code, so in order to
get working stdio code we have to do those fixes all over in order to
make anything compiled against those libraries ABSOLUTELY FREELY
REDISTRUTABLE.
>
>One similar example would be when 386bsd imported Linus' math
>emulator: the copyright was changed to the same style that the rest of
>the 386bsd kernel uses, when it originally was under the GPL. (The
>change was done with Linus' complete approval, I haste to add.)
And I commed Linus, and his work highly for that. I wish that more of
the Linux people were more willing to do that. (And to be honest, I
haven't asked very many folks about this). But, some people believe
with distributing anything but GPL code, because the 'end all/be all'
way to distribute code is to GPL/LGPL it. I disagree, and am considered
a 'bad guy' because I distribute my fixes w/out any added restrictions
that the original code had.
Flames by email,
Nate
Doug Quale
The stdio code that HJ has done lots of work on(and I commend him on
it). The original code, before he fixed some of the bugs, was originally
distributed by AT&T, but HJ's fixes are now GPL code, so in order to
get working stdio code we have to do those fixes all over in order to
make anything compiled against those libraries ABSOLUTELY FREELY
REDISTRUTABLE.
Well Nate, the stdio code in Linux is GNU iostream, part of the g++ library,
has always been under the GPL, and was *never* distributed by AT&T. Of
course your argument is so confused that I don't expect you to pay any
attention to accuracy or the facts in your posts, but I thought I should
point that out for the benefit of the people who aren't familiar with the
Linux libraries.
--
Doug Quale
qu...@spock.cs.wisc.edu
Joe Emenaker
>HJ - Linux will use whatever better in 386bsd. But 386bsd has to
>HJ - start from scratch, unless you do it yourself. For example,
>HJ - 387 emulation and C library.
>
>Nate - And then Linux and the GNU folks will take what 386BSD has done and
>Nate - restrict it. Now, isn't that nice....... taking my work and restricting
>Nate - it. I always thought that was awful kind of them. (NOT!)
>Nate -
>Nate - Who really likes GNU utilities, but hates the way alot of folks take
>Nate - other peoples programs and code, fix them and then don't make the
>Nate - changes 'completely redistributable;
>
>HJ -
>HJ - If everybody did that, the GNU copyright would not be a problem. Is
>HJ - your purpose to let someone make "completely non-redistributable"
>HJ - stuff? Am I missing something?
>
>No, my purpose is to make 386BSD completely re-distrubutable, with NO
>strings attached. That means Sun, DEC, HP, Ren and Stimpy, or whoever
>can take this code and sell a binary copy of it. The GPL does not allow
>this.
I have a big problem with that and I'll tell you why. This is how the
whole GNU project was explained to me by a good friend. Forgive me if
it's not exactly right:
Apparently the guy who wrote Emacs released it into the public domain.
He made it completely redistributable. As the story was told to me, DEC
Corporation saw Emacs and liked it and decided that they were going to
take it. I don't recall if they just started selling it or if they
somehow "assumed" the rights of emacs. This pissed the guy off... who
decided he was going to write a NEW or "GNU" version of emacs and was
going to reserve the rights just enough so that nobody else could claim
the rights to it.
Now, it really, Really, REALLY angers me to think of these big
corporations taking public-domain and otherwise free software and
distributing it as their own and actually getting money for it. How
DEVOID of work-ethic does some have to be to pull a stunt like that? And
you're saying that you're pleased as punch if DEC can just ftp a copy of
386BSD and start selling it for $500/copy as DEC-BSD/PC or something?!?!
That makes me ill. It really does. When I code stuff and release it to
the public domain, I stipulate that the stuff is free and is free to
modify, but ANYTHING that is derived from my code or that USES the
binaries has to be free as well. I think that the GNU agreement is
something similar to this. Now, if a company wants to charge for
SUPPORT, or if they want to charge a media fee for distribution....
that's okay (SoftLanding does this.... as far as I can tell).
Anyway.... that's what I wanted to say.
--
Joe Emenaker - Sexual Engineer | Our infernal mailer daemon has been quite
jeme...@nike.calpoly.edu | insitent that my signature be limited to just
..or.. @bslab65.calpoly.edu | 4 lines. However, as you can see, I have
..or.. @cash.calpoly.edu | figured out an elegant way to put as many as
Charles Hannum
You are just muddying the issue by throwing in random flame baits.
Charles Hannum
In article <1993Apr17....@serval.net.wsu.edu> h...@eecs.wsu.edu
(HJ Lu) writes:
>
> That means no GNU copyrighted code in the "official" 386bsd release.
You are full of shit. The `official' release include GCC, GDB, GNU
tar, and several other pieces of GNU code.
Jim Winstead Jr.
In article <1993Apr17....@serval.net.wsu.edu> h...@eecs.wsu.edu
(HJ Lu) writes:
>
> That means no GNU copyrighted code in the "official" 386bsd release.
You are full of shit. The `official' release include GCC, GDB, GNU
tar, and several other pieces of GNU code.
I believe HJ may have spoken a little hastily. I believe, however,
that the Jolitz' have said they do not want any copylefted code in the
*kernel proper*. Hence, Linus was asked (or volunteered?) to make the
math emulation code available under a BSDish copyright, which he did.
I remember a flap in the 386BSD community a little while ago about an
improved serial driver (?) that the author had copylefted, which
angered a good many people, and the author had to loosen the copyright
to the BSDish form for it to be accepted.
Just trying to do a little interpreting and clarifying, and not
leaping into this absolutely stupid and childish series of flame wars.
(And that's coming from someone in the .edu domain, too! :)
--
loveritablessencentipedependentalism+ Jim Winstead Jr. (CSci '95)
andaterrificklengtherealityearguessy| Harvey Mudd College, WIBSTR
mpathybridgenerationiceremonymphysic| jwin...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU
alendareadvertisexpresshothoughthend+ or jwin...@fenris.Claremont.EDU
Adam J. Richter
>restrict it. Now, isn't that nice....... taking my work and restricting
>it. I always thought that was awful kind of them. (NOT!)
When speaking at SVNet meetings, Bill Jolitz has repeatedly
stated that he sees 386BSD as a sort of publicly accessible research
vehicle for operating systems. The 386BSD core distribution is not
designed for the average end user. Instead, the 386BSD copyright is
unrestricted specifically for the purpose of allowing the results of
386BSD to be assimilated into any other operating system project, such
as Windows, turnkey BSD distributions or Linux. The public benefit is
supposed to come from this assimilation, not unlike the way most unix
users now benefit from the Berkeley filesystem and networking work.
Assimilating 386BSD software into Linux without Linux having to give up
its copyright policy is more than just allowed; it is specifically the
point of 386BSD.
--
Adam J. Richter Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
409 Evelyn Ave., Apt. 312, Albany CA 94706 PO Box 8418, Berkeley CA 94707-8418
(510) 528-3209 (510) 526-7531, fax: (510) 528-8508
ad...@netcom.com yggd...@netcom.com
Another member of the League for Programming Freedom (l...@uunet.uu.net).
The Knight in Silicon Armor.
[ Story about DEC ripping off EMACS author deleted...]
>Now, it really, Really, REALLY angers me to think of these big
>corporations taking public-domain and otherwise free software and
>distributing it as their own and actually getting money for it. How
>DEVOID of work-ethic does some have to be to pull a stunt like that? And
>you're saying that you're pleased as punch if DEC can just ftp a copy of
>386BSD and start selling it for $500/copy as DEC-BSD/PC or something?!?!
>That makes me ill. It really does. When I code stuff and release it to
>the public domain, I stipulate that the stuff is free and is free to
>modify, but ANYTHING that is derived from my code or that USES the
>binaries has to be free as well. I think that the GNU agreement is
>something similar to this. Now, if a company wants to charge for
>SUPPORT, or if they want to charge a media fee for distribution....
>that's okay (SoftLanding does this.... as far as I can tell).
>
>Anyway.... that's what I wanted to say.
I think what's griping Nate is that if someone contributes code to
a LIBRARY under GPL and someone else creates software and uses that
library to compile said software of their own creation, they are not permitted
under the GPL to sell it. It's kind of like Borland coming along and saying
that because you used TurboC to compile software, they are entitled to
a share in any profits since you used their libraries. While I agree that
it would be totally reprehensable for anyone to sell the libraries, I do
not think it is right to tell someone that wrote 10,000 lines of code
that may have 1 or 2 calls to libraries that are under the GPL that
they are not allowed to try to get recompense for their efforts. IMHO, if
I release something into the public domain, my concern as to the use
made of it has ended.
This is my opinion. You are free to use and distribute it provided you
do not charge for the distribution. If you should, however, derive an
opinion of your own from mine, you may charge whatever you can get for
it. :-)
Snuffy
--
Just say NO to .signatures!!! ven...@pitt.edu
Jay A. Carlson
strings attached. That means Sun, DEC, HP, Ren and Stimpy, or whoever
can take this code and sell a binary copy of it. The GPL does not allow
this.
You and I, and your list of luminaries, can sell binary copies of
GPL'd code. What you can't do is sell 'em without source availability.
The original BSD copyright has been this way, but unfortunately a group of
people take the code, fix the code, and then place restrictions on it.
How is this worse than, say, DEC fixing the code and not releasing
source at all?
--
Jay Carlson
n...@theory.cs.mankato.msus.edu
Flat text is just *never* what you want. ---stephen p spackman
Tim Pierce
>No, my purpose is to make 386BSD completely re-distrubutable, with NO
>strings attached. That means Sun, DEC, HP, Ren and Stimpy, or whoever
>can take this code and sell a binary copy of it. The GPL does not allow
>this.
You really think that? Snort.
--
____ Tim Pierce / ?Usted es la de la tele, eh? !La madre
\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / del asesino! !Ay, que graciosa!
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / -- Pedro Almodovar
Garrett D'Amore
>In article <1993Apr17.2...@zeus.calpoly.edu> jeme...@trumpet.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
>
[a whole BUNCH of stuff deleted]
>
>I think what's griping Nate is that if someone contributes code to
>a LIBRARY under GPL and someone else creates software and uses that
>library to compile said software of their own creation, they are not permitted
>under the GPL to sell it. It's kind of like Borland coming along and saying
>that because you used TurboC to compile software, they are entitled to
>a share in any profits since you used their libraries. While I agree that
>it would be totally reprehensable for anyone to sell the libraries, I do
>not think it is right to tell someone that wrote 10,000 lines of code
>that may have 1 or 2 calls to libraries that are under the GPL that
>they are not allowed to try to get recompense for their efforts. IMHO, if
>I release something into the public domain, my concern as to the use
>made of it has ended.
>
I believe that if you write LIBRARY code using the GLPL (or whatever)
you impart the ability to developers using your libraries the ability
to sell or freely distribute "derived works". This is different from
the standard GPL, which is intended to protect applications. This
can be considered analagous to Borland allowing to freely restribute
code containing calls to the Turbo C libraries, but prohibiting you
from distributing code derived from reverse engineering Paradox. The
assumption is that Library code *should* be freely redistributable, at
least insofar as part of an executable. But, I think it's fair to expect
developers of applications to protect their apps.
As far as Linux goes, I'm not sure. Some of the stuff is "library" code, but
other stuff should be considered "application" code.
In any case, the idea is to protect not just the author, but the general
public (i.e. users) from getting ripped off by someone who'd steal code, change
a line or two, and charge exorbitant rates for it. If say DEC were to "borrow"
the Linux or BSD kernel, change a few lines (like maybe the copyright...)
and market it, the people who developed it would feel *very* cheated. GPL
protects against that sort of thing.
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
====================================================================
Garrett D'Amore | gar...@haas.berkeley.edu
Software Co-Ordinator | 68 Barrows Hall, UC Berkeley
Haas Computing Services | Ph: 510-643-5923 Fax: 642-4769
====================================================================
James R. Wiegand
For the life of me I have no idea what this has to do with Linux.
As for the topic, there is nothing appropriate to say about it
except take it somewhere else. This kind of rhetoric does nothing other
than provoke normally reasonable people into emotional responses.
May I suggest the creation of a newsgroup to handle this discussion:
alt.flamewares.linux.vs.bsd.kill.kill.kill.
jim
rm -f ~/.sig
Thomas McWilliams
>Who really likes GNU utilities, but hates the way alot of folks take
>other peoples programs and code, fix them and then don't make the
>changes 'completely redistributable;
I suppose you are referring to BSDI and BSD/386? Or do you mean Sun?
Or DEC? FSF/GNU protects your freedom. The FSF fights the software
hoarding that you dislike.
Thomas -- tmc...@gcr.com
Thomas McWilliams
>The stdio code that HJ has done lots of work on(and I commend him on
>it). The original code, before he fixed some of the bugs, was originally
>distributed by AT&T, but HJ's fixes are now GPL code, so in order to
>get working stdio code we have to do those fixes all over in order to
Why do you need Linux developers to fix BSD code? It seems that
the logical choice would be to take the fixes from BSDI. They
are using the same NET/2 sources as you. BSD/386 is available with
source code. If the NET/2 sources had been protected by the GPL
then you wouldn't have various BSD factions re-inventing the wheel,
duplicating efforts, wasting time, stalling progress. The purpose
the GPL is to prevent this lunacy. The GPL encourages the sharing
of improvements, a good thing in my opinion.
Thomas -- tmc...@gcr.com
damian
>Now, it really, Really, REALLY angers me to think of these big
>corporations taking public-domain and otherwise free software and
>distributing it as their own and actually getting money for it. How
>DEVOID of work-ethic does some have to be to pull a stunt like that? And
>you're saying that you're pleased as punch if DEC can just ftp a copy of
>386BSD and start selling it for $500/copy as DEC-BSD/PC or something?!?!
>
>That makes me ill. It really does. When I code stuff and release it to
>the public domain, I stipulate that the stuff is free and is free to
>modify, but ANYTHING that is derived from my code or that USES the
>binaries has to be free as well. I think that the GNU agreement is
>something similar to this. Now, if a company wants to charge for
>SUPPORT, or if they want to charge a media fee for distribution....
>that's okay (SoftLanding does this.... as far as I can tell).
I have to agree with you here.
Nate:
I can't see what your problem is in practice. Ok so you feel that public
software should be completely free from all restrictions, but
unfortunately this world is full of people who are happy to hoodwink
people and make a fast buck, by lying about who wrote the software and
not passing on that freedom.
People who write public software only do it for one thing: to see their
name in lights. That might seem frivolous, but I believe it's true. So
if that is their only motivation, then don't allow the sharks to take
that away from them. After all, no motivation, no software.
Us techie's know what we are doing, we know that we can get the latest
version of something from the net, other's are not connected, or are
not technical enough to realise that the software they have just bought
for mega bucks, is public software and that they have not been given
the source. The GPL protects the writer & the end user (often the
"little guys").
At the end of the day, I think that in practice, that there is no problem.
BSD386 is charge-free (except for a requested donation), GNU is
charge-free. I don't believe that BSD386 will ever be charged for, so
it will stay in the public software arena anyway, whether it is
forced to or not by the GPL.
Just a few ramblings
Damian
--
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Damian Ivereigh | If you can't suss out what this is replying to |
| dam...@centrix.demon.co.uk | get a threaded news reader, like trn. :-) |
| Twickenham, U.K. | This is the best way to cut wasted traffic |
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
Mats Lfkvist
No, I would not complain. I believe the work should be in the same vein
as it was distributed. COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY free. Not copylefted,
which places restrictions on its distribution.
If you REALLY want to ensure your code is distributed by others in the same
vein as when you distributed it, you HAVE to add restrictions to it demanding
that (funny, this is exactly what the GPL does...).
The original BSD copyright has been this way, but unfortunately a group of
people take the code, fix the code, and then place restrictions on it.
If you don't like this (the BSD copyright allows it on purpose as others
have commented), you probably like the GPL more than you think. The GPL
is the only license I've seen so far that ensures that a piece of
software stays free over its lifetime. Placing a piece of code in the
public domain or using a BSD-ish copyright ensures that anyone can
get the code as originally distributed, but nothing more.
I also don't understand why you think it's ok for a developer to
take the BSD code, add their own fixes to it without making them available,
and then sell the system binary only with the most restricting copyright
notice you can imagine,
but don't like it when another developer
takes the BSD code, add their own fixes to it and then makes them available
under the GPL.
_
Mats Lofkvist
d87...@nada.kth.se
Nate Williams
>
>Now, it really, Really, REALLY angers me to think of these big
>corporations taking public-domain and otherwise free software and
>distributing it as their own and actually getting money for it. How
>DEVOID of work-ethic does some have to be to pull a stunt like that? And
>you're saying that you're pleased as punch if DEC can just ftp a copy of
>386BSD and start selling it for $500/copy as DEC-BSD/PC or something?!?!
Ah yes, it is much more 'morally' correct to do the same thing, but call
it a 'much nobler' way to restrict code.
My grief is caused from this complaint of 'stealing' code, and then the
same thing happening 'for the good of all men', when if fact it is the
SAME THING!!
I don't claim to be perfect, but I don't claim to be doing 'great and
wonderful things' to the world by taking someone's code and then
slapping a more restrictive copyright on it.
That's the bottom line.
What you choose to do with my code is your business. But don't tell
me you are doing the world a favor by restricting my work.
Nate Williams
>
>In article <1993Apr17.2...@coe.montana.edu> na...@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes:
> strings attached. That means Sun, DEC, HP, Ren and Stimpy, or whoever
> can take this code and sell a binary copy of it. The GPL does not allow
> this.
>
>GPL'd code. What you can't do is sell 'em without source availability.
Agreed.
>
> The original BSD copyright has been this way, but unfortunately a group of
> people take the code, fix the code, and then place restrictions on it.
>
>How is this worse than, say, DEC fixing the code and not releasing
>source at all?
DEC never claimed to be 'morally superior', and convince the world that the
only way to write code was to do it DEC's way.
David Giller
Look, folks, regardless of the merits of a side-by-side comparison of
operating systems (I personally think they are a Good Thing), it has
been PROVEN time and again that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do this
impartially over USENET. Some little fact is wrong or presented in
such a way that some acolyte of one OS faith becomes mortally
offended, etc. etc.
About this time, I think there needs to be two new newsgroups:
alt.os.linux.comparison.with.386bsd and
alt.os.386bsd.comparison.with.linux. Then the people who CARE to hear
the senseless dribble that comes of this can go and leave the rest of
us alone.
--
David Giller, Box 134 | Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in a light
Occidental College | bulb? A: Three. One to replace the bulb, and two to
1600 Campus Road | fend off all the Californians trying to share the
Los Angeles, CA 90041 | experience. ---------------------------rafe...@oxy.edu
Matthew Newhook
>People who write public software only do it for one thing: to see their
>name in lights. That might seem frivolous, but I believe it's true. So
>if that is their only motivation, then don't allow the sharks to take
>that away from them. After all, no motivation, no software.
What a pile of shit. Quite often people write software, look at it,
say jee, this is useful! I bet some other people will like to use this.
let's let them see it, and use it if they want to. They didn't sit down
and say, mm... I wonder what I can write to have my name in lights...
After all, do you know the name of the person who wrote `less'?
>Just a few ramblings
>Damian
>--
>+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
>| Damian Ivereigh | If you can't suss out what this is replying to |
>| dam...@centrix.demon.co.uk | get a threaded news reader, like trn. :-) |
>| Twickenham, U.K. | This is the best way to cut wasted traffic |
>+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
--
Matthew Newhook (mat...@engr.mun.ca) | "...get on with the fascination
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science | the real relation, the underlying
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada | theme" - Limelight, Rush
Peter da Silva
> take the BSD code, add their own fixes to it without making them available,
> and then sell the system binary only with the most restricting copyright
> notice you can imagine,
Gee, I don't recall Sun claiming they owned *my* code because I linked it with
their toolkits.
--
Peter da Silva. <pe...@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' Oletko halannut suttasi tänään?
'U`
Tarjoilija, tämä ateria elää vielä.
Amancio Hasty Jr
>dam...@centrix.demon.co.uk (damian) writes:
>>People who write public software only do it for one thing: to see their
>>name in lights. That might seem frivolous, but I believe it's true. So
>>if that is their only motivation, then don't allow the sharks to take
>>that away from them. After all, no motivation, no software.
>
Why, have I hack my brains out for the last year on 386bsd?
To allow thousands to enjoy in the comfort of their home a
workstation. Not to mention the numerous ports of available
PD software.
Why dont you mention that commercial enterprises not only seek
glory but also your money.
386bsd+Linux population as this point is a drop in the bucket
compared to DOS or the traditional "workstation".
Amancio Hasty
--
This message brought to you by the letters X and S and the number 3
Amancio Hasty |
Home: (415) 495-3046 | ftp-site depository of all my work:
e-mail ha...@netcom.com | sunvis.rtpnc.epa.gov:/pub/386bsd/incoming
Sean Eric Fagan
>Gee, I don't recall Sun claiming they owned *my* code because I linked it with
>their toolkits.
Neither does the FSF.
What the FSF does say, however, is that you must continue to follow the GPL
if you distribute a program that include GPL'd code. Part of this requirement
is that you must distribute source code to the entire product (with various
exceptions mentioned in the GPL and LGPL).
Various DOS-based compilers have their own restrictions -- and microsoft
used to claim that code output by their compiler *was* their code (or,
rather, a derivative product of your code and their code). Most vendors have
changed their rather ridiculous licenses by now, but not all, by any
means.
Bill Dueber
If anyone is honestly interested in a side-by-side comparison, we here
in the CS department at Indiana are going to be doing one this summer.
We're looking at building a new workstation cluster out of 486's, and
will be using four machines -- two Linux, two 386BSD -- for the first
half of the summer to see what we can get running on each system and
how well each system meets our needs for a public access cluster. While
most of you out there won't be using your machines for public access,
we'll probably learn a few things that will apply in the general case.
If you're interested in seeing the results when they come out in
June or July, send me mail. Don't bother to post, because I'm
putting this thread in my kill file even as I type :-)
Bill
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Dueber wdu...@whale.cs.indiana.edu
IU Computer Science Graduate Slug
I don't need none of *your* jujubees, baby, gonna get a box of my own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KID01
>
>I think what's griping Nate is that if someone contributes code to
>a LIBRARY under GPL and someone else creates software and uses that
>library to compile said software of their own creation, they are not permitted
>under the GPL to sell it. It's kind of like Borland coming along and saying
Can't this be 'gotten round' by including a linking kit or something ?
Matthew
--
Matthew Roderick -*- B2 Developments -*- mat@{dsbc,oasis}.icl.co.uk
+44 [0]782 771000 x3270 -*- UNIX Centre, ICL, Stoke-on-Trent, England.
Spelling & typing errors have been left for orthentisity
Alan Cox
>And then Linux and the GNU folks will take what 386BSD has done and
>restrict it. Now, isn't that nice....... taking my work and restricting
>it. I always thought that was awful kind of them. (NOT!)
>
All of the BSD derived code within the Linux utilities is still under the
UCB license. If you are worried about your own work then include your own
license that makes it free, requires whatever redistribution you want but
does not place it in the public domain. A lot of people do this, and any
code under that form of license you cannot just alter and 'Gnuify' as it
would be a derivative work of your original. A lot of well known software
is redistributed this way. The important thing is that you make it freely
redistributable (barring your own restrictions) and _NOT_ public domain.
Alan
Peter da Silva
> In article <C5p4I...@sugar.neosoft.com> pe...@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >Gee, I don't recall Sun claiming they owned *my* code because I linked it with
> >their toolkits.
> Neither does the FSF.
Not for *some* of these toolkits, since the library license came out.
> What the FSF does say, however, is that you must continue to follow the GPL
> if you distribute a program that include GPL'd code.
"Ownership" of intellectual property comes down to the ability to control its
distribution. If the FSF controls the distribution of my code, they own it.
> Various DOS-based compilers have their own restrictions -- and microsoft
> used to claim that code output by their compiler *was* their code (or,
> rather, a derivative product of your code and their code).
"Used to".
Quite a long time ago.
Just about everyone but the FSF has quit this sort of rubbish. Some require
a license fee for their runtimes, but that's about it.
Damien Neil
Peter da Silva (pe...@NeoSoft.com) wrote:
: In article <C5poE...@kithrup.com> s...@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
: > Various DOS-based compilers have their own restrictions -- and microsoft
: > used to claim that code output by their compiler *was* their code (or,
: > rather, a derivative product of your code and their code).
: "Used to".
: Quite a long time ago.
: Just about everyone but the FSF has quit this sort of rubbish. Some require
: a license fee for their runtimes, but that's about it.
Are you saying that code produced by a GPL compiler is forced to be under the
GPL? If so, you are wrong. I can use gcc to make an application, link in a
GPL'd library, and sell the whole thing for thousands of dollars while keeping
the source code in a locked safe in Siberia. The only restriction the GPL
imposes is that programs that contains actual GPL'd source code must fall under
the GPL. (Note: linking in a library != using source code.)
--
Damien Neil dp...@po.cwru.edu "Until someone debugs reality, the best
Case Western Reserve University I can do is a quick patch here and there."
CMPS/EEAP Linux -- the choice of a GNU generation. -Erik Green
jcb...@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov
>In article <1qq2ts$1l...@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu> myc...@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
> In article <1993Apr17....@serval.net.wsu.edu> h...@eecs.wsu.edu
> (HJ Lu) writes:
> >
> > That means no GNU copyrighted code in the "official" 386bsd release.
>
> You are full of shit. The `official' release include GCC, GDB, GNU
> tar, and several other pieces of GNU code.
>
>I believe HJ may have spoken a little hastily. I believe, however,
>that the Jolitz' have said they do not want any copylefted code in the
>*kernel proper*. Hence, Linus was asked (or volunteered?) to make the
>math emulation code available under a BSDish copyright, which he did.
>
>I remember a flap in the 386BSD community a little while ago about an
>improved serial driver (?) that the author had copylefted, which
>angered a good many people, and the author had to loosen the copyright
>to the BSDish form for it to be accepted.
Just out of curiosity, I remember awhile back that AT&T was suing BSDI
for copyright infringement, or something along those lines. I also
remember that BSD386 (the BSDI product) and 386BSD were originally one
and the same, being developed by the Jolitz's and friends. At some point
a feud broke out and 386BSD (the free product) seperated from BSD386
(the commercial product). Now, does the AT&T suit against BSDI affect
386BSD in any way ?
Kelly Murray
programs, and creating restricted-copyright or proprietary programs.
It is ironic that GNUites are violating their own philosophy by converting
unrestricted software into restricted software.
Software that is ``really free'', that is, released without restrictions,
provides benefits to EVERYBODY. Everybody includes people who create
GNUified software, as well as those who create commercial software.
As an aside, because GNUified software releases source code, it is easy
to incorporate changes made to really-free programs back into the
original code, as copyright does not cover cases where
there is substantially no other way to do something, which
would cover most bugfix-type changes.
-Kelly (k...@cis.ufl.edu)
Tim Pierce
>I can use gcc to make an application, link in a
>GPL'd library, and sell the whole thing for thousands of dollars while keeping
>the source code in a locked safe in Siberia. The only restriction the GPL
>imposes is that programs that contains actual GPL'd source code must fall under
>the GPL. (Note: linking in a library != using source code.)
Where do you suppose the library code came from? Was it just born
there?
Followups are set to gnu.misc.discuss.
Mats Löfkvist
"Ownership" of intellectual property comes down to the ability to control its
distribution. If the FSF controls the distribution of my code, they own it.
YOU choose to let the FSF control the distribution of your code when you
decide to use FSF tools, code or whatever that makes the GPL to apply to
your code.
Just about everyone but the FSF has quit this sort of rubbish. Some require
a license fee for their runtimes, but that's about it.
Or YOU choose to pay five bucks for each copy of your program you sell if you
decide to use a tool with such a license.
What's the problem? Different licenses for different purposes. One to ensure
source availability, another to ensure financial gain. If you don't like one
of them, don't use it.
Why is it so hard to understand that code from the FSF comes with a licence
you have to accept if you want to use it? Is it because the code "is there"
in front of you, looking so available? Most people annoyed by the GPL terms
sounds like children in a candy store when they are told the candy is not
free to take just because it is lying there under their noses.
_
Mats Lofkvist Really don't mind if you sit this one out.
d87...@nada.kth.se My words but a whisper - your deafness a SHOUT.
david.e.wexelblat
> In article <1993Apr17.2...@zeus.calpoly.edu> jeme...@trumpet.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
>
> >Now, it really, Really, REALLY angers me to think of these big
> >corporations taking public-domain and otherwise free software and
> >distributing it as their own and actually getting money for it. How
> >DEVOID of work-ethic does some have to be to pull a stunt like that? And
> >you're saying that you're pleased as punch if DEC can just ftp a copy of
> >386BSD and start selling it for $500/copy as DEC-BSD/PC or something?!?!
> >
I don't understand this. If someone decides to do some work and give the
work away, and they put no restrictions on it, why should you care what
people do with it? Using as an example the rather large FreeWare project
that I am involved in (XFree86), we knew from the day we started it that
people would likely commercialize some or all of it. It takes a lot of
chutzpah to be in business. We didn't have the guts/desire/whatever to
take the work commercial. We also didn't believe in putting restrictions
that were completely unenforcable (from an economic, if not a legal,
standpoint). We tell people "You can do whatever you want with this,
except claim you wrote it. And we'd appreciate it if you gave us credit
for the work we did." Why hang some rediculous requirements like the GPL
on it, when we have no intention/desire/resources to enforce it?
I know for a fact that there are several commercial ventures that are
using some or all of XFree86. Many of these came to us ahead of time
and said "Do you have any problems with our doing this?" Several
have come to us after the fact and said "We did this. Do you mind?".
I'm sure there are others who haven't bothered to talk to us.
We in fact have a friendly relationship with all of these folks. One
has contributed code back to the project. A couple of others may as
well.
If it doesn't bother us, who have put thousands of hours into it, why
in the world does it bother you?
> >That makes me ill. It really does. When I code stuff and release it to
> >the public domain, I stipulate that the stuff is free and is free to
> >modify, but ANYTHING that is derived from my code or that USES the
> >binaries has to be free as well. I think that the GNU agreement is
> >something similar to this. Now, if a company wants to charge for
> >SUPPORT, or if they want to charge a media fee for distribution....
> >that's okay (SoftLanding does this.... as far as I can tell).
>
If you put something in the public domain, then you give up all rights to it.
In fact, most of the software that people call "public domain" is actually
in fact "Free Redistributable Copyrighted Software" (or some such nonsense).
You can put any restriction you want on your code. And attempt to enforce
it if you like. But if you really put it in the public domain, you have
lost all control. Hence you have no right to bitch.
> I have to agree with you here.
>
> Nate:
> I can't see what your problem is in practice. Ok so you feel that public
> software should be completely free from all restrictions, but
> unfortunately this world is full of people who are happy to hoodwink
> people and make a fast buck, by lying about who wrote the software and
> not passing on that freedom.
If you write software with no intention of commercial gain, and you
enjoy what you are doing, why should you care what anyone else does
with the software? If you put a copyright on the stuff, then you
still own it. Unless someone tries to prevent you from doing what
your are doing, it should have absolutely no impact on your life.
> People who write public software only do it for one thing: to see their
> name in lights. That might seem frivolous, but I believe it's true. So
> if that is their only motivation, then don't allow the sharks to take
> that away from them. After all, no motivation, no software.
>
Oh, bull cookies. We started XFree86 because we wanted to improve the
performance of the X11R5 server. Then we expanded the project. Why
do we do it?
1) We can add a lot of support for things that weren't supported
before (e.g. 386BSD and Linux), and make it available to people
who aren't going to be supported by the commercial ventures.
2) We can learn a hell of a lot about a lot of topics we'd never
dealt with.
3) We enjoy it.
My motivation for continuing with this is that I am still learning and
still enjoying what I am doing. True, I have gained a fair measure of
recognition from this work, and I appreciate that. But it was never
my intention, nor does it have anything to do with why I continue. I
would do this even without the recognition.
FreeWare can coexist quite well with commercial alternatives. There
is far more cooperation, good will, interaction, etc, between the
XFree86 Core Team and the commercial "competitors" than most people
are aware of. Largely because we realize where our niche in the market
is. This is actually one of the most refreshing and gratifying things
about the project - there is very little competition, just a lot of
hard work and cooperation.
> Us techie's know what we are doing, we know that we can get the latest
> version of something from the net, other's are not connected, or are
> not technical enough to realise that the software they have just bought
> for mega bucks, is public software and that they have not been given
> the source. The GPL protects the writer & the end user (often the
> "little guys").
The GPL doesn't protect anyone unless they have the resources to try to
enforce it. The GPL provides no more protection against copyright
violation than any other copyright does. Perhaps FSF and LPF have
the financial and legal muscle to try to enforce it. But the "little
guy" doesn't. So why sweat it? If you're doing what you want to do,
why do you care what someone else does?
Various companies commercializing XFree86 isn't going to make us go
away. People who want free X will still get it from us - if they
were willing to pay for commercial packages, there are already several
options available.
Don't try to explain why we do what we do, if you have never done anything
of the same scale. Don't tell us what should annoy/bother/offend/upset
us - we are not stupid; we knew all of this going in. Don't tell us that
we need to put rediculous, unenforcable restrictions on our code to
protect some "rights" that aren't in jeopardy to start with.
>
> At the end of the day, I think that in practice, that there is no problem.
> BSD386 is charge-free (except for a requested donation), GNU is
> charge-free. I don't believe that BSD386 will ever be charged for, so
> it will stay in the public software arena anyway, whether it is
> forced to or not by the GPL.
It's 386BSD, BTW, to which you refer. BSD/386 IS a commercial product.
And your last statement is EXACTLY the point - why bother with superfluous
things like the GPL when the software will remain free anyhow?
>
> Just a few ramblings
> Damian
>
> --
> +----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
> | Damian Ivereigh | If you can't suss out what this is replying to |
> | dam...@centrix.demon.co.uk | get a threaded news reader, like trn. :-) |
> | Twickenham, U.K. | This is the best way to cut wasted traffic |
> +----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
Off my soapbox.
Why is it that I now find myself preparing to be flamed by FSF and LPF zealots?
--
David Wexelblat <dw...@mtgzfs3.att.com> (908) 957-5871 Fax: (908) 957-5627
AT&T Bell Laboratories, 200 Laurel Ave - 3F-428, Middletown, NJ 07748
XFree86 requests should be addressed to <xfr...@physics.su.oz.au>
"Love is like oxygen. You get too much, you get too high. Not enough and
you're gonna die." -- Sweet, Love Is Like Oxygen
Elizabeth Haley
>Are you saying that code produced by a GPL compiler is forced to be under the
>GPL? If so, you are wrong. I can use gcc to make an application, link in a
>GPL'd library, and sell the whole thing for thousands of dollars while keeping
>the source code in a locked safe in Siberia. The only restriction the GPL
>imposes is that programs that contains actual GPL'd source code must fall under
>the GPL. (Note: linking in a library != using source code.)
Err... Almost...
Making a binary with gcc and selling it sans source is legal, yes.
Linking that binary with a GPL'd lib and selling *that* sans source is
prohibitted in the *L*GPL... However selling your binary code linked
with the GPL'd lib and distributing the source to the GPL'd library
lifts this prohibition... There are other particulars, which should be
looked up in the *L*GPL. (*'s mine)
damian
>Oh, Jesus, here we go again.
>
>Look, folks, regardless of the merits of a side-by-side comparison of
>operating systems (I personally think they are a Good Thing), it has
>been PROVEN time and again that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do this
>impartially over USENET. Some little fact is wrong or presented in
>such a way that some acolyte of one OS faith becomes mortally
>offended, etc. etc.
>
>About this time, I think there needs to be two new newsgroups:
>alt.os.linux.comparison.with.386bsd and
>alt.os.386bsd.comparison.with.linux. Then the people who CARE to hear
>the senseless dribble that comes of this can go and leave the rest of
>us alone.
Well said!
damian
>>People who write public software only do it for one thing: to see their
>>name in lights. That might seem frivolous, but I believe it's true. So
>>if that is their only motivation, then don't allow the sharks to take
>>that away from them. After all, no motivation, no software.
>
>What a pile of shit. Quite often people write software, look at it,
>say jee, this is useful! I bet some other people will like to use this.
>let's let them see it, and use it if they want to. They didn't sit down
>and say, mm... I wonder what I can write to have my name in lights...
>After all, do you know the name of the person who wrote `less'?
Ok, I got the phrasing wrong. What I mean to say is yes people write a
bit of software, see that with a bit of tidying up that would be useful
to other people. Now why do they bother to do the tidying up, pack it
into a tar file, stuff some docs together and then give time to other
people helping them to use it? Ok I didn't mean people sit down and think
"what can make me famous" etc etc. What I mean to say is software writers
are proud of their little creation, they think is a neat bit of coding,
solves a problem in a neat and generic way etc etc. This is in much the
same way that a painter paints a painting, or an author writes a book
(very rarely is the prime motivation money). Why is the list of credit's
at the end of a film so long? If artists didn't care, there would be no
credits. Ok no, I can't remember who wrote 'less', but I know what 'less'
is because it is so widely used and the author is probably proud that
*his* bit of software is so widely used. At least everybody acknowledges
that he wrote it, rather than DEC saying "it is part of *our* s/w
pack", implying that is has been written by them. Do you get my point?
sl...@cc.usu.edu
>
> I don't understand this. If someone decides to do some work and give the
> work away, and they put no restrictions on it, why should you care what
> people do with it? Using as an example the rather large FreeWare project
> that I am involved in (XFree86), we knew from the day we started it that
> people would likely commercialize some or all of it. It takes a lot of
> chutzpah to be in business. We didn't have the guts/desire/whatever to
> take the work commercial. We also didn't believe in putting restrictions
> that were completely unenforcable (from an economic, if not a legal,
> standpoint). We tell people "You can do whatever you want with this,
> except claim you wrote it. And we'd appreciate it if you gave us credit
> for the work we did." Why hang some rediculous requirements like the GPL
> on it, when we have no intention/desire/resources to enforce it?
>
This is exactly the problem I have with the GPL, it doesn't help the
computer science industry in general. GNU is currently in a position
to contribute greatly to the computer industry. GCC/glibc/bison/flex/etc.
are powerful tools for software development. They also run on about
every platform.
If commercial enterprises could develop their code using these "STANDARD"
tools, it would run on all architectures "UNMODIFIED". This could be
the best thing for everyone... developers sell more software, users can
buy software at a lower cost. Currently every package must be ported to
every machine it should run on.
I think that GNU/LPF/FSF need to examine the GPL and see if they can
make their tools usable by EVERYONE! Why are we wasting countless
hours having DEC/HP/Novell/Sun/etc write their own architecture specific
compilers, lib's, and windowing wigits. I'm sure many companies would
use GCC, etc. if the GPL wasn't so viral.
I personally am looking forward to the day that I can write a piece of
code and have it run on every machine I have an account on... with no
changes. Is GNU interested in this kind of thing also?
Dave
Joe Emenaker
>dam...@centrix.demon.co.uk (damian) writes:
>>jeme...@trumpet.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
>>
>> >Now, it really, Really, REALLY angers me to think of these big
>> >corporations taking public-domain and otherwise free software and
>> >distributing it as their own and actually getting money for it. How
>> >DEVOID of work-ethic does some have to be to pull a stunt like that? And
>> >you're saying that you're pleased as punch if DEC can just ftp a copy of
>> >386BSD and start selling it for $500/copy as DEC-BSD/PC or something?!?!
>> >
>
>I don't understand this. If someone decides to do some work and give the
>work away, and they put no restrictions on it, why should you care what
>people do with it? Using as an example the rather large FreeWare project
>that I am involved in (XFree86), we knew from the day we started it that
>people would likely commercialize some or all of it. It takes a lot of
>chutzpah to be in business. We didn't have the guts/desire/whatever to
>take the work commercial.
You don't have to go commercial in order to make sure that commercial
developers don't try to make money from your work without doing any work
themselves.
> We tell people "You can do whatever you want with this,
>except claim you wrote it. And we'd appreciate it if you gave us credit
>for the work we did."
Yeah, you'd "appreciate it". Here's an extremely hyptohetical case to
make a point:
Let's say Microsoft decides they don't want to put in the development
costs for Windows NT, so they ftp 386BSD and XFree and plaster
"Microsoft" logos all over it. Let's say it's tremendously sucessful and
MS gets away with charging $500 per copy and Bill Gates makes another $7
billion.
Are you telling me you wouldn't have even a hint of sentiment that
somebody had grossly freeloaded off you?
See what I'm getting at here? There's no way you can be sure that the
general computing community (aka "Joe User") will benefit at all from
the selfless, thankless work you've done. You don't think that the lower
development costs of the commercial packages are going to actually lower
the final price of the package, do you? The price of the software is
designed to do ONE thing only: maximize "price*quantity_sold", and the
fact that you ended up doing a lot of their work for free isn't going to
affect that at all. That's not how economics works.
On the other hand, let's suppose some company took XFree and spruced it
up a tad and added some functionality that you really liked. You liked
it better than the XFree you were using and you didn't want to go
through the trouble of coding those same changes in yourself, so you
asked for a copy from them.... and they say "Sure. That'll be $200
please.". What's to keep someone from changing one line of your code and
then charging you X amount of money in exchange for a copy of it.
Hell, I'd think the LEAST you'd do is stipulate that, if anyone uses
your code, they have to put a message somewhere conspicuous that the
software is heavily derived from a package you can get for FREE from
so-and-so. Otherwise, there's no reason to believe you've done anything
other than increase some company's profits. You haven't lowered the cost
to "Joe User" one bit!
> Why hang some rediculous requirements like the GPL
>on it, when we have no intention/desire/resources to enforce it?
Because a corporation won't put their balls on the chopping block like
that. Even if they thought you wouldn't care, the day may someday come
when you DID care (perhaps when THEIR derivative or your software was
very sucessful and you were having trouble making your house-payments).
Unless they have a license to do what they want, no careful company is
going to expose themself to litgation like that.
Well, I just perused the GPL and I think it quite up-front about its
intent. The GPL is intended to make sure that OTHER people can't put
more restrictions on your software. In order to do that, there is a
certain amout of necessary restriction that they must place on the
software in order to ensure that even more restriction. I mean, compared
to the restrictions that COULD be placed on the software, the GPL is
extremely lax. In fact, when I think about it, it seems that the GPL
doesn't restrict what you can DO with the software as far as
modification; it just restricts how mean you can be to the people you
pass the software on to. The GPL stipulates that you have to extend
every courtesy that was extended to you. Fair's fair.
Also, I think the GPL is designed to sort of stack the deck against
commercial software. Since commercial development tools can be used to
develop commercial OR GNU-ish software, GNU-ish tools can only be used
to develop more GNU-ish tools. It's like a one-way door. I like it. ;-}
>> >that's okay (SoftLanding does this.... as far as I can tell).
>FreeWare can coexist quite well with commercial alternatives. There
>is far more cooperation, good will, interaction, etc, between the
>XFree86 Core Team and the commercial "competitors" than most people
>are aware of.
Yeah. Wait until the tables are turned after they get big. Wait until
YOU need a favor from THEM, when their company is being run by lawyers
and bean-counters.... see if they even remember your NAME!
> Largely because we realize where our niche in the market
>is.
You're the guppy that gets swallowed by the bigger fish.
> This is actually one of the most refreshing and gratifying things
>about the project - there is very little competition, just a lot of
>hard work and cooperation.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Okay. I've just decided that I'm going to develop an object oriented
desktop from Windows to compete with Norton Desktop. I'll just search
around for a bunch of folks like you who are looking for a learning
experience. THen, I'll sit around and wait until you guys finish it.
Then, I'll package it and sell it for $100 a copy. Oh... I'll be REALLY
cooperative. Hell, I might even buy you lunch for letting me freeload
off of you.
>The GPL doesn't protect anyone unless they have the resources to try to
>enforce it.
But no software company is going to bet on that. If the company becomes
sucessful at all based upon the merits of your software, SOME lawyer is
going to offer to sue on your behalf just for a cut of the award.
--
Joe Emenaker - Sexual Engineer | Our infernal mailer daemon has been quite
jeme...@nike.calpoly.edu | insitent that my signature be limited to just
..or.. @bslab65.calpoly.edu | 4 lines. However, as you can see, I have
..or.. @cash.calpoly.edu | figured out an elegant way to put as many as
Joe Emenaker
>A big part of GNUism is to prevent people from taking unrestricted-copyright
>programs, and creating restricted-copyright or proprietary programs.
>It is ironic that GNUites are violating their own philosophy by converting
>unrestricted software into restricted software.
Well, I think of it as akin to our rights as American citizens: There is
a certain set of restrictions that must be placed upon my freedom to
ensure that I can't restrict OTHERS' freedoms. For example, I am
prohibited from shooting you in the head, because that would infringe
upon your right NOT to be shot in the head.
On the same token, the GPL places just enough restriction to ensure that
nobody can place any MORE restrictions. It ensures that each recipient
of GNUish software will pass on the same privledges and rights that were
afforded to THEM. Isn't that fair?
You have to impose SOME set of rule to ensure fairness.... just like
there must be SOME set of laws to ensure freedom.
D V Henkel-Wallace
From: sl...@cc.usu.edu
I think that GNU/LPF/FSF need to examine the GPL and see if they can
make their tools usable by EVERYONE! Why are we wasting countless
hours having DEC/HP/Novell/Sun/etc write their own architecture specific
compilers, lib's, and windowing wigits. I'm sure many companies would
use GCC, etc. if the GPL wasn't so viral.
They might, and they might not supply their changes. The GPL is about
user-empowerment (if there's a problem, you can fix it yourself, or
get help from a variety of places) and sharing (each GNU developer can
build on the work of others -- no need for reinventing the wheel.
In fact many companies _do_ base their software strategies on GNU
software. Naturally, our customers are among them!
I personally am looking forward to the day that I can write a piece of
code and have it run on every machine I have an account on... with no
changes. Is GNU interested in this kind of thing also?
Of course. Though only part of the problem is addressed by the GNU
project. For instance, if you do't have enough disk space, they won't
help...
This has only a little to do with Linux, sorry. But the GPL is hardly
a _barrier_ to the Linux's development -- it's a technical advantage,
just like any other.
Jose Marques
>That makes me ill. It really does. When I code stuff and release it to
>the public domain, I stipulate that the stuff is free and is free to
>modify, but ANYTHING that is derived from my code or that USES the
then one lost all rights to make restrictions on how that item was
used. Is this wrong?
--
Jose Marques, Systems Programmer
%INCLUDE STDSCLMR
Peter da Silva
I dunno. Have you been following it?
> Are you saying that code produced by a GPL compiler is forced to be under the
> GPL?
Obviously not. I was talking about toolkits. It's a third party who brought
in Microsoft's old (and long discarded) claim on the output of a compiler.
And linking in a GPL library *is* the same as using any other GPL code in
your program, unless that particular library was put under the GNU library
copyright... a document created relatively recently under pressure like
this.
david.e.wexelblat
> dw...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat) writes:
> >dam...@centrix.demon.co.uk (damian) writes:
> >>jeme...@trumpet.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
> >>
> >> >Now, it really, Really, REALLY angers me to think of these big
> >> >corporations taking public-domain and otherwise free software and
> >> >distributing it as their own and actually getting money for it. How
> >> >DEVOID of work-ethic does some have to be to pull a stunt like that? And
> >> >you're saying that you're pleased as punch if DEC can just ftp a copy of
> >> >386BSD and start selling it for $500/copy as DEC-BSD/PC or something?!?!
> >> >
> >
> >I don't understand this. If someone decides to do some work and give the
> >work away, and they put no restrictions on it, why should you care what
> >people do with it? Using as an example the rather large FreeWare project
> >that I am involved in (XFree86), we knew from the day we started it that
> >people would likely commercialize some or all of it. It takes a lot of
> >chutzpah to be in business. We didn't have the guts/desire/whatever to
> >take the work commercial.
>
> You don't have to go commercial in order to make sure that commercial
> developers don't try to make money from your work without doing any work
> themselves.
>
You are TOTALLY missing the point. We DON'T CARE if people make money
off of our work. We are not in it for money - we are in it for other
reasons. And we want people to be able to do ANYTHING they want with
it, except claim the wrote it. Don't think we're stupid. We mean "anything".
> > We tell people "You can do whatever you want with this,
> >except claim you wrote it. And we'd appreciate it if you gave us credit
> >for the work we did."
>
> Yeah, you'd "appreciate it". Here's an extremely hyptohetical case to
> make a point:
>
> Let's say Microsoft decides they don't want to put in the development
> costs for Windows NT, so they ftp 386BSD and XFree and plaster
> "Microsoft" logos all over it. Let's say it's tremendously sucessful and
> MS gets away with charging $500 per copy and Bill Gates makes another $7
> billion.
>
And unless they claimed they wrote it, I wouldn't particulary care. I
would like to get the credit, but if not, so be it.
> Are you telling me you wouldn't have even a hint of sentiment that
> somebody had grossly freeloaded off you?
>
Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. The only thing that would bother
me is if they claimed they wrote it (by removing the copyright, or failing
to credit us as copyright holders).
> See what I'm getting at here? There's no way you can be sure that the
> general computing community (aka "Joe User") will benefit at all from
> the selfless, thankless work you've done. You don't think that the lower
> development costs of the commercial packages are going to actually lower
> the final price of the package, do you? The price of the software is
> designed to do ONE thing only: maximize "price*quantity_sold", and the
> fact that you ended up doing a lot of their work for free isn't going to
> affect that at all. That's not how economics works.
Microsoft taking my work will not take it out of the hands of anyone who
already has access to it. If Microsoft manages to penetrate a market we
can't and uses our code to do it, more power to them.
I think I believe in free software far more than you do. "Economics" does
not enter the equation at all.
>
> On the other hand, let's suppose some company took XFree and spruced it
> up a tad and added some functionality that you really liked. You liked
> it better than the XFree you were using and you didn't want to go
> through the trouble of coding those same changes in yourself, so you
> asked for a copy from them.... and they say "Sure. That'll be $200
> please.". What's to keep someone from changing one line of your code and
> then charging you X amount of money in exchange for a copy of it.
>
Again, I say "more power to you". Believe it or not, this has already
been done, and is being done by others as we speak. We don't look for
them to give us back the value they've added to the product. If they
do, that's nice (and again, this has been done). If they decide that
their value-added is not free, then we won't get it. We'll either do it
ourselves, or we'll not do it at all. It still doesn't change what we
are doing.
I'll give you a real big example: Members of the X Consortium have access
to hundreds, if not thousands, of bug fixes to X11R5 that we don't. Some
of these we have fixed ourselves. Some of these we are saying "well, we'll
get them in X11R6". We're not crying because the X Consortium gives
privileges to paying members.
Not quite the same thing, but in many way, a much more frustrating scenario
than the one you describe.
> Hell, I'd think the LEAST you'd do is stipulate that, if anyone uses
> your code, they have to put a message somewhere conspicuous that the
> software is heavily derived from a package you can get for FREE from
> so-and-so. Otherwise, there's no reason to believe you've done anything
> other than increase some company's profits. You haven't lowered the cost
> to "Joe User" one bit!
Again, we come back to "enforcability". We can't enforce such a restriction,
so why make it? When we have been contacted by commercial ventures, I
have told them that we would like to have the derivation of the work
mentioned. And, in general, they have agreed.
We're not after lowering "Joe User"'s costs. That's not the point. No one
who is aware of our product is going to pay for it from another source. if
the user isn't aware of our product, then that's not our problem.
If you follow XFree86 at all, you will see that I continually recommend
commercial alternatives to XFree86 when these products can provide something
we can't. That can be service/support, performance, other features, etc.
>
> > Why hang some rediculous requirements like the GPL
> >on it, when we have no intention/desire/resources to enforce it?
>
> Because a corporation won't put their balls on the chopping block like
> that. Even if they thought you wouldn't care, the day may someday come
> when you DID care (perhaps when THEIR derivative or your software was
> very sucessful and you were having trouble making your house-payments).
> Unless they have a license to do what they want, no careful company is
> going to expose themself to litgation like that.
>
Come on. You mean to tell me that Microsoft wouldn't just use GCC if
they felt it suited their needs? Get real. They'd be sneaky and devious
about it, etc. It is just exactly as illegal from Microsoft to remove
our copyright and claim our work as their own as it is for them to violate
the GPL (since both are copyrights). The legal ramifications are identical.
So why put the restrictions in? If they're going to violate one, they're
going to violate the other.
> Well, I just perused the GPL and I think it quite up-front about its
> intent. The GPL is intended to make sure that OTHER people can't put
> more restrictions on your software. In order to do that, there is a
> certain amout of necessary restriction that they must place on the
> software in order to ensure that even more restriction. I mean, compared
> to the restrictions that COULD be placed on the software, the GPL is
> extremely lax. In fact, when I think about it, it seems that the GPL
> doesn't restrict what you can DO with the software as far as
> modification; it just restricts how mean you can be to the people you
> pass the software on to. The GPL stipulates that you have to extend
> every courtesy that was extended to you. Fair's fair.
>
Regardless of the GPL, they can't put restrictions on MY software. They
can put my software in their software and do what they want with it. But
they can't stop me from distributing my software exactly the way I do it
today.
> Also, I think the GPL is designed to sort of stack the deck against
> commercial software. Since commercial development tools can be used to
> develop commercial OR GNU-ish software, GNU-ish tools can only be used
> to develop more GNU-ish tools. It's like a one-way door. I like it. ;-}
>
Which is EXACTLY my objection to the GPL. I write software for a living.
I LIKE the fact that I make money writing software - it gives me the
resources to buy machines so I can do XFree86. As the GNU project has
finally realized (vis-a-vis their net appeals), if programmers don't get
paid, programmers don't program.
> >> >that's okay (SoftLanding does this.... as far as I can tell).
> >FreeWare can coexist quite well with commercial alternatives. There
> >is far more cooperation, good will, interaction, etc, between the
> >XFree86 Core Team and the commercial "competitors" than most people
> >are aware of.
>
> Yeah. Wait until the tables are turned after they get big. Wait until
> YOU need a favor from THEM, when their company is being run by lawyers
> and bean-counters.... see if they even remember your NAME!
>
Umm. Is "USL" (ooh - evil acronym!) big enough for you? How about "SCO"?
> > Largely because we realize where our niche in the market
> >is.
>
> You're the guppy that gets swallowed by the bigger fish.
>
Hasn't happened yet. If it does, I will move on to something else.
Where exactly is the problem? Somehow I don't see the commercial X
vendors supporting 386BSD and Linux and Amoeba and...
> > This is actually one of the most refreshing and gratifying things
> >about the project - there is very little competition, just a lot of
> >hard work and cooperation.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Okay. I've just decided that I'm going to develop an object oriented
> desktop from Windows to compete with Norton Desktop. I'll just search
> around for a bunch of folks like you who are looking for a learning
> experience. THen, I'll sit around and wait until you guys finish it.
> Then, I'll package it and sell it for $100 a copy. Oh... I'll be REALLY
> cooperative. Hell, I might even buy you lunch for letting me freeload
> off of you.
>
Again, who are you to get offended in my place? If I'M not bothered by
someone doing this, why on earth should you be?
>
> >The GPL doesn't protect anyone unless they have the resources to try to
> >enforce it.
>
> But no software company is going to bet on that. If the company becomes
> sucessful at all based upon the merits of your software, SOME lawyer is
> going to offer to sue on your behalf just for a cut of the award.
>
Bull cookies. If Apple is going to go up against MicroSloth over Windows,
what makes you think they would hesitate to STOMP all over FSF if they
decide it would be a useful thing to do? Bad press? Ha! They'd get more
bad press from stomping on US than they would from stomping on FSF.
So what's the point?
> --
> Joe Emenaker - Sexual Engineer | Our infernal mailer daemon has been quite
> jeme...@nike.calpoly.edu | insitent that my signature be limited to just
> ..or.. @bslab65.calpoly.edu | 4 lines. However, as you can see, I have
> ..or.. @cash.calpoly.edu | figured out an elegant way to put as many as
--
David Wexelblat <dw...@mtgzfs3.att.com> (908) 957-5871 Fax: (908) 957-5627
AT&T Bell Laboratories, 200 Laurel Ave - 3F-428, Middletown, NJ 07748
XFree86 requests should be addressed to <xfr...@physics.su.oz.au>
"Love is like oxygen. You get too much, you get too high. Not enough and
you're gonna die." -- Sweet, Love Is Like Oxygen
william E Davidsen
| Now, it really, Really, REALLY angers me to think of these big
| corporations taking public-domain and otherwise free software and
| distributing it as their own and actually getting money for it. How
| DEVOID of work-ethic does some have to be to pull a stunt like that? And
| you're saying that you're pleased as punch if DEC can just ftp a copy of
| 386BSD and start selling it for $500/copy as DEC-BSD/PC or something?!?!
Sure, but anyone else can sell it for $100 a copy, or $50 and copy, or
give it away. I'm selling some of my net software (which I released to
the net for free use) because some companies require that software be
purchased from a vendor who will warrant it virus free. Fine with me, I
gave it away, but if someone will make money on it, I'm willing to have
it be me.
| That makes me ill. It really does. When I code stuff and release it to
| the public domain, I stipulate that the stuff is free and is free to
| modify, but ANYTHING that is derived from my code or that USES the
| binaries has to be free as well. I think that the GNU agreement is
| something similar to this. Now, if a company wants to charge for
| SUPPORT, or if they want to charge a media fee for distribution....
| that's okay (SoftLanding does this.... as far as I can tell).
Sorry, that's not the way GNU works, either. I can sell gcc for
$10,000/copy with no support. But I have to provide source, and can't
restrict redistribution. Which means that I will not get $10k for very
many copies, because others will be selling for $100/copy.
I charge for Linux on floppy, even though I have it on my BBS (parts,
anyway) for free. I keep trying to get people to go into competition
with me, without much luck. Nothing wrong with that, either. If people
think my copying charge is too high, they can sell for less.
--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
Last year I worried that Bush would die and let Quayle take over.
This year I worry that Hillary will die and let Bill take over.
william E Davidsen
| People who write public software only do it for one thing: to see their
| name in lights. That might seem frivolous, but I believe it's true. So
| if that is their only motivation, then don't allow the sharks to take
| that away from them. After all, no motivation, no software.
Um, I don't think you speak for all authors of free software,
certainly not for me. I suspect in most cases 90% of the work was done
to solve a problem, and only the last 10% of the effort, documentation
and packaging, and maybe a few bells and whistles. If a person is a
problem solver in general, there will be a lot of "neat stuff" generated
over the years, which can be shared with the net with minimal effort.
william E Davidsen
| What the FSF does say, however, is that you must continue to follow the GPL
| if you distribute a program that include GPL'd code. Part of this requirement
| is that you must distribute source code to the entire product (with various
| exceptions mentioned in the GPL and LGPL).
The current GLP and particularly GLPL are the result of a lot of
pressure over time, and the initial versions were a lot more
restrictive. If you're going to quote GPL as a paragon of reasonable
restrictions, look at some of the older version for historical
perspective. The original GPL could be read to say that if you compiled
you code with gcc you had to give away the source. The current GPL is
far more realistic, although I have no information that it's ever been
tested in court.
Russ Nelson
In article <1993Apr17....@serval.net.wsu.edu> h...@eecs.wsu.edu
(HJ Lu) writes:
>
> That means no GNU copyrighted code in the "official" 386bsd release.
You are full of shit. The `official' release include GCC, GDB, GNU
tar, and several other pieces of GNU code.
He could only have meant the kernel.
--
--russ <nel...@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> Businesses persuade; Governments force.
Russ Nelson
> I also don't understand why you think it's ok for a developer to
> take the BSD code, add their own fixes to it without making them
> available, and then sell the system binary only with the most
> restricting copyright notice you can imagine,
Gee, I don't recall Sun claiming they owned *my* code because I
linked it with their toolkits.
Oh foo, Peter. No one is claiming ownership rights to *your* code
should you link it with a GPL library. They are just putting conditions
on your right to copy *their* code which gets linked into your program.
Tim Pierce
>If commercial enterprises could develop their code using these "STANDARD"
>tools, it would run on all architectures "UNMODIFIED". This could be
>the best thing for everyone... developers sell more software, users can
>buy software at a lower cost. Currently every package must be ported to
>every machine it should run on.
Noncommercial enterprises already do this. I rarely run anything but
free software any more.
>I personally am looking forward to the day that I can write a piece of
>code and have it run on every machine I have an account on... with no
>changes. Is GNU interested in this kind of thing also?
Think about it. They're the ones designing an operating system, after
all.
Heikki Suonsivu
In article <1qus7e...@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> k...@zoyd.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Kelly Murray) writes:
provides benefits to EVERYBODY. Everybody includes people who create
Not quite, lots of free code is taken by large corporations, on which they
stick their own copyright and prevent the fixes and enchancements from
being used by anyone else. I have seen this, BSD copyright with "Copyright
1992 HAL corporation, all rights reserver, this code is protected by trade
secrets act" or something like this.
Preventing this is what GPL is all about; it restricts the software from
being restricted. True, some people don't like this, but they do have many
alternatives, so they should have nothing to complain about? If they don't
like paying for other people's work, they can always write their own
compilers with no restrictions?
-
Heikki Suonsivu, T{ysikuu 10 C 83/02210 Espoo/FINLAND,
h...@cs.hut.fi +358-0-8031121 riippu SN Email preferable
/G=Heikki/S=Suonsivu/O=hut/OU=cs/PRMD=Inet/ADMD=Fumail/C=FI
Pete Bergstrom
quickly.
In article <1qus7e...@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> k...@zoyd.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Kelly Murray) writes:
Software that is ``really free'', that is, released without restrictions,
provides benefits to EVERYBODY. Everybody includes people who create
GNUified software, as well as those who create commercial software.
As an aside, because GNUified software releases source code, it is easy
to incorporate changes made to really-free programs back into the
original code, as copyright does not cover cases where
there is substantially no other way to do something, which
would cover most bugfix-type changes.
The problem is that not all people are willing to make their
improvements available unless they're forced to do so by the terms of
the original software. This may be true in the case of someone who
wants to convert something from your "really free" into proprietary
and sell it.
Pete
Wally Bass
>Now, it really, Really, REALLY angers me to think of these big
>corporations taking public-domain and otherwise free software and
>distributing it as their own and actually getting money for it. How
>DEVOID of work-ethic does some have to be to pull a stunt like that? And
>you're saying that you're pleased as punch if DEC can just ftp a copy of
>386BSD and start selling it for $500/copy as DEC-BSD/PC or something?!?!
>
Why does it make it make you ill? If someone is willing to pay
DEC/whoever $500 for the software, then it must have been worth it to
the buyer. The buyer is a winner, in getting something of value that
he/she (apparently) would not otherwise have gotten (for whatever
reason), the software is finding even wider usage (which is presumably
what the creator would have liked), and DEC/whoever provided a real
service to the customer in getting the software to that customer. If
the DEC/whoever price is a rip-off, then that creates an opportunity
for someone else to provide whatever the customer wanted at a better
price. That's what free markets are all about. Trying to impose
restrictions on who (else) can charge what for what only clogs
channels, and subtracts value.
In a free market, lots of people add value which is substantial and
easily overlooked, such as a distribution channel or more convenient
packaging or bundling. Why are you so determined that *YOUR*
'makes-me-ill' feelings are a better measure of value-added than what
the free market itself has to say?
Most Socialist economies are driven by similar irrational fears, where
there is a paranoid focus is on preventing people from getting 'more
than they deserve' (as determined by the state), rather than a
willingness to think about the effectiveness of the system or to
listen to what a free market is saying about the values of things.
Indeed, societies can and have prevented entrepreneurial activities,
but history has shown (with the USSR being a wonderful example at the
moment) that this approach is only a net negative for the people at
large in such a society.
Wally Bass
william E Davidsen
| If you follow XFree86 at all, you will see that I continually recommend
| commercial alternatives to XFree86 when these products can provide something
| we can't. That can be service/support, performance, other features, etc.
Makes sense. I'd certainly pay for a 24 bit X server, and it wouldn't
have to be super fast, just work. Xfree does limit the 8 bit server
market, though.
| > Also, I think the GPL is designed to sort of stack the deck against
| > commercial software. Since commercial development tools can be used to
| > develop commercial OR GNU-ish software, GNU-ish tools can only be used
| > to develop more GNU-ish tools. It's like a one-way door. I like it. ;-}
| >
|
| Which is EXACTLY my objection to the GPL. I write software for a living.
| I LIKE the fact that I make money writing software - it gives me the
| resources to buy machines so I can do XFree86. As the GNU project has
| finally realized (vis-a-vis their net appeals), if programmers don't get
| paid, programmers don't program.
As long a computers cost money I guess I'll keep writing commercial
software.
| Bull cookies. If Apple is going to go up against MicroSloth over Windows,
| what makes you think they would hesitate to STOMP all over FSF if they
| decide it would be a useful thing to do? Bad press? Ha! They'd get more
| bad press from stomping on US than they would from stomping on FSF.
And less satisfaction.
Sean Eric Fagan
>Which is EXACTLY my objection to the GPL. I write software for a living.
>I LIKE the fact that I make money writing software - it gives me the
>resources to buy machines so I can do XFree86. As the GNU project has
>finally realized (vis-a-vis their net appeals), if programmers don't get
>paid, programmers don't program.
I write software for a living, too. I get paid for it. So does my
apartmentmate. So do all of the programmers I work with.
We also only write and support free software.
We do not sell software, we sell programming.
"We" are Cygnus, incidently. But there are a couple of other companies
doing the same, and quite a few independent contractors.
The FSF has relied largely on donations to their cause; they have not tried
to sell either software or programming. Due to a variety of conditions, that
money is drying up, and the FSF is now trying to push themselves to get
money -- which, of course, is exactly what other charitable organizations do.
Until recently, the FSF relied largely on word-of-mouth, you see.
It is entirely possible to work only on free software and still make a decent
living.
Kelly Murray
|>
|> In article <1qus7e...@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> k...@zoyd.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Kelly Murray) writes:
|> provides benefits to EVERYBODY. Everybody includes people who create
|>
|> Not quite, lots of free code is taken by large corporations, on which they
|> stick their own copyright and prevent the fixes and enchancements from
|> being used by anyone else. I have seen this, BSD copyright with "Copyright
|> 1992 HAL corporation, all rights reserver, this code is protected by trade
|> secrets act" or something like this.
I said that really-free programs provide benefits to everyone, not
commercial versions based on them. (Commercial software based on really-free
software also provides benefits (a related point), but I get the impression
you do not acknowledge this.)
|>
|> Preventing this is what GPL is all about; it restricts the software from
|> being restricted. True, some people don't like this, but they do have many
|> alternatives, so they should have nothing to complain about? If they don't
|> like paying for other people's work, they can always write their own
|> compilers with no restrictions?
I don't think you read my post. The first line I say exactly this.
Now whether I like it, I think my position is clear:
really free software provides more benefits than GNUifed software.
-Kelly
Henry G. Juengst
In article <1993Apr15.2...@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Brandon....@launchpad.unc.edu (Brandon Vanevery) writes:
> Both free unixes are deemed reliable by many sources.
>
> 386BSD has better TCP/IP, for now.
There's much more than TCP/IP. Don't forget NFS, YP (oh, sorry - NIS :-),
diskless systems etc. (sure, you know that, but it may be interesting for
other people to know).
>
> Linux is far less resource-hungry, due to shared libraries.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feel free to use the "inofficiel" shared libraries posted a long time ago
for 386bsd ! Of course, these one are not the best solution, but they are
much better than nothing.
>
> 386BSD fixes come out slowly, all at once. Linux fixes come out quickly,
> a little bit at a time.
>
> Neither free unix has 24-bit color support. Both will get it at the same
> time if it comes available, as both use XFree86.
>
> Snittily Graphics Consulting Services makes 24-bit X drivers for S3 928
> based boards, for several commercial unixes.
>
> Commercial unixes are all very expensive. The cheapest is the new Univel
> UNIXware - $250 for user version, $695 for the developer version. All
> others are well over $1000. It's really rather silly, I think.
>
> SCO Unix has been recommended to me as "the best" of the commercial
> systems, by a few folks.
Sure, there are many people who call something "the best" because
there are many other people who call something "the best" etc..
Does SCO use X11R5, _yet_ ? :-)
> That's about all the info I have. Look to the FAQs for more precise
> breakdowns of the commercial stuff.
>
> Cheers,
> Brandon
>
> --
> The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
> North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
> Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
> internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
>
Henry
--
jue...@boss1.physik.uni-bonn.de [131.220.221.30] {u}
jue...@saph2.physik.uni-bonn.de [131.220.221.12] {d}
jue...@pib1.physik.uni-bonn.de [131.220.221.2] {s}
I'm only speaking for myself, but not for anybody else !
Kelly Murray
I would not agree this topic is stupid, but I would agree that
it doesn't belong in comp.os.linux. I suggest any further discussion
move to gnu.misc.discuss.
In response to your point, few people will release their sources just
because GNU `forces' them. If someone does not want to give away their
work, they simply do not have the option to build upon GNU software.
Thus, GNU software does not directly contribute to creating better
commercial software, whereas really-free software does.
I think the general reaction of GNUites is that this is a good thing.
They don't acknowledge the benefits of proprietary, commercial software.
-Kelly
Joe Buck
>In response to your point, few people will release their sources just
>because GNU `forces' them. If someone does not want to give away their
>work, they simply do not have the option to build upon GNU software.
>Thus, GNU software does not directly contribute to creating better
>commercial software, whereas really-free software does.
>I think the general reaction of GNUites is that this is a good thing.
>They don't acknowledge the benefits of proprietary, commercial software.
Sorry, but there is a simple counterargument to what you say here, namely,
everything ever produced by NeXT. Every bit of their software is compiled
by a compiler derived from gcc. Are you seriously going to claim that
they would have achieved what they did if they didn't have GCC to start
from, so they would have had to produce an Objective-C compiler, debugger,
and other developent tools from scratch?
Many commercial software developers and commercial companies benefit from
GNU software -- everyone who uses any of the GNU tools benefits. In some
cases, they wind up (like Lucid's Energize environment, or Motorola's
56000 development tools) producing a package that combines free (GPL)
software, proprietary software, and support, thus getting a product to
market faster (why write a fancy editor if you can just use Emacs and
customize it as you like)?
You might argue that in the absense of the GPL, GCC might be "completely
free" and NeXT could have built on that. If GCC were not licensed under
the GPL, then some software companies would have used it as a basis for
their own compilers, but they would not have given back the changes -- it
is these changes that have made GCC as portable and as high-quality as it
is. I think that at least in the case of GCC, it is the GPL that has
created the huge number of freely available ports: 15 or so different
instruction sets and 50+ different platforms, if not more. Without the
GPL, there'd be some gcc-derived compilers here and there, but work on one
would not assist work on the others.
Does that mean I think that all code should be licensed under the GPL?
No. But to deny its contribution is to just put your head in the sand.
--
Joe Buck jb...@ohm.berkeley.edu
Warner Losh
>He made it completely redistributable. As the story was told to me, DEC
>Corporation saw Emacs and liked it and decided that they were going to
>take it. I don't recall if they just started selling it or if they
>somehow "assumed" the rights of emacs. This pissed the guy off... who
>decided he was going to write a NEW or "GNU" version of emacs and was
>going to reserve the rights just enough so that nobody else could claim
>the rights to it.
Please check with this reality when posting about the history of gnu
Emacs. The above is totally bogus and demonstrates a complete lack of
knowledge of what really went down. I'm not qualified to give a blow
by blow on the history of Emacs, but I do know that this never
happened.
Warner
P.S. It did happen with another program, but I don't recall the name,
so I won't engage in speculation.
--
Warner Losh i...@boulder.parcplace.COM ParcPlace Boulder
I've almost finished my brute force solution to subtlety.
Tim Smith
>That makes me ill. It really does. When I code stuff and release it to
>the public domain, I stipulate that the stuff is free and is free to
>modify, but ANYTHING that is derived from my code or that USES the
>binaries has to be free as well. I think that the GNU agreement is
If you do this, then you have not released your code into the public
domain. If you put something in the public domain, then *ANYONE* can
do *ANYTHING* with it.
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>>I personally am looking forward to the day that I can write a piece of
>>code and have it run on every machine I have an account on... with no
>>changes. Is GNU interested in this kind of thing also?
>
>Think about it. They're the ones designing an operating system, after
>all.
I bet Taligent, NeXT, and Microsoft will get there first.
--Tim Smith
Wolf Paul
> (In reply to a complaint about the GNU GPL)
>
>Why is it so hard to understand that code from the FSF comes with a licence
>you have to accept if you want to use it? Is it because the code "is there"
>in front of you, looking so available? Most people annoyed by the GPL terms
>sounds like children in a candy store when they are told the candy is not
>free to take just because it is lying there under their noses.
Maybe because chief proponents of the FSF assume such a morally superior,
holier-than-thou attitude about their supposedly "free" software which
in reality isn't free at all but encumbered with a rather complex set
of rules?
The problem with the candy store you mention above is that it sports a
great big sign, "Free Candy", and once you're inside you find out that
that is a bunch of baloney, it isn't free, but has strings attached.
--
V Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center w...@rcvie.co.at
+-----------------+ Alcatel Austria Research Center +43-1-391621-122 (w)
| A L C A T E L | Ruthnergasse 1-7 +43-1-391452 (fax)
+-----------------+ A-1210 Vienna-Austria/Europe +43-1-2246913 (h)
william E Davidsen
| "We" are Cygnus, incidently. But there are a couple of other companies
| doing the same, and quite a few independent contractors.
|
| The FSF has relied largely on donations to their cause; they have not tried
| to sell either software or programming. Due to a variety of conditions, that
| money is drying up, and the FSF is now trying to push themselves to get
| money -- which, of course, is exactly what other charitable organizations do.
| Until recently, the FSF relied largely on word-of-mouth, you see.
|
| It is entirely possible to work only on free software and still make a decent
| living.
Yes, but only if there are people writing free software who are not
trying to make a living from it. There isn't enough "good will" money
around to support all the people who write the software.
Blair MacIntyre
Wolf> In article <D87-MAL.93...@byse.nada.kth.se>
Wolf> d87...@byse.nada.kth.se (Mats Löfkvist) writes:
> (In reply to a complaint about the GNU GPL)
>
>Why is it so hard to understand that code from the FSF comes with a licence
>you have to accept if you want to use it? Is it because the code "is there"
>in front of you, looking so available? Most people annoyed by the GPL terms
>sounds like children in a candy store when they are told the candy is not
>free to take just because it is lying there under their noses.
Wolf> Maybe because chief proponents of the FSF assume such a morally superior,
Wolf> holier-than-thou attitude about their supposedly "free" software which
Wolf> in reality isn't free at all but encumbered with a rather complex set
Wolf> of rules?
I don't know how you define free, but I haven't paid money for any GNU
software recently.
They never said it was public-domain, they said it was free. As in, no
money. As in, no money for the source. All you have to do is not
charge people for any modifications you make and let them have the
original source.
Boy people complain about anything. You charge for software, they say
it's too much. You give it to them free, they complain they can't do
whatever they damn well please with the source.
Next thing you know, people will be complaining that the GNU people
won't make custom modifications for them.
Wolf> The problem with the candy store you mention above is that it sports a
Wolf> great big sign, "Free Candy", and once you're inside you find out that
Wolf> that is a bunch of baloney, it isn't free, but has strings
Wolf> attached.
If you go into the candy store and they are not charging you for it,
it's free. If they have strings attached ... well, you don't _have_ to
take it. Nobody is forcing you.
--
Blair MacIntyre --- b...@cs.columbia.edu --- CS Department, Columbia University
"You drive, you kill." --- from the movie "Roadkill"
Peter da Silva
> What I mean to say is software writers
> are proud of their little creation, they think is a neat bit of coding,
> solves a problem in a neat and generic way etc etc.
Agreed. And for many of us it's quite enough to be able to say "you know,
I wrote the VT-100 emulation code in SuperExpensiveCommPackage". So only a
few of their friends know... they're the ones that count most anyway.
I know for certain that there are commercial vendors using code that I wrote
without giving me credit, because I've seen familiar graphics objects show
up in shrinkwrapped packages. That's cool. It's fine for me to be able to
say "hey, that's my file requestor" without having it waved in everyone's
face.
I'm *glad* they're using it. If I'd GPLed it, they'd have used something else
and I'd never have the opportunity to say "hey, that's mine!". No thanks.
--
Peter da Silva. <pe...@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' Har du kramat din varg idag?
'U`
My Apple-II has more RAM than my Mac!
Peter da Silva
> I don't understand this. If someone decides to do some work and give the
> work away, and they put no restrictions on it, why should you care what
> people do with it?
Doubled. Another phenomenon I'm bugged by is when someone sends me mail
saying that some PD software house in Germany is selling MY browser on a
disk for $15 (or whatever it is in DM), and that's more than the $5 that
everyone "knows" is "fair". My response is "hey, that's cool. Give me
their address and I'll send them the latest version".
Some of them get really uptight about that.
Peter da Silva
> Let's say Microsoft decides they don't want to put in the development
> costs for Windows NT, so they ftp 386BSD and XFree and plaster
> "Microsoft" logos all over it. Let's say it's tremendously sucessful and
> MS gets away with charging $500 per copy and Bill Gates makes another $7
> billion.
That's cool. "I" tell Cringely and the other muckrakers and start selling
my version (the original and the best) for $99.95 per copy, and make a
paltry few million. "I"'m happy to freeload off Microsoft's advertising budget.
Peter da Silva
> "Ownership" of intellectual property comes down to the ability to control its
> distribution. If the FSF controls the distribution of my code, they own it.
> YOU choose to let the FSF control the distribution of your code when you
> decide to use FSF tools, code or whatever that makes the GPL to apply to
> your code.
Bingo. That's why I don't use toolkits and so on that make the GPL apply
to my code, and why Bill Jolitz doesn't use GPL code in the 386BSD kernel,
and why John Ousterhout doesn't use GPL code in TCL, and so on... for all
the various actions that FSF fans have been bemoaning in this thread.
You chose to give up ownership of your code to the FSF.
That's fine.
I choose not to.
That's fine, too.
So why are you flaming me for it?
> What's the problem? Different licenses for different purposes. One to ensure
> source availability, another to ensure financial gain. If you don't like one
> of them, don't use it.
Exactly my point. I coudn't have said it better myself.
So why this flame war? Why are you folks dumping on us 386BSD people because
we don't like the one you like? That's what's going on here:
FSF folks: why don't you use this GPLed code in BSD?
BSD folks: we don't want to put BSD under the GPL.
FSF folks: why not?
BSD folks: (see reasons above)
FSF folks: (buncha flaming about evil corporations)
BSD folks: hey, it's our work, and we don't mind, why do you
mind?
FSF folks: (buncha flaming about how the GPL is the best)
BSD folks: (explanation about why the GPL isn't right for them)
FSF folks: why are you flaming the GPL?
BSD folks: huh?
Look, folks, we have legitimate reasons for not wanting to use GPL code
in our software. We've explained them. If you don't understand, could you
at least take your own advice:
> What's the problem? Different licenses for different purposes. One to ensure
> source availability, another to ensure financial gain. If you don't like one
> of them, don't use it.
I don't know what the problem is. You tell me.
Peter da Silva
> Oh foo, Peter. No one is claiming ownership rights to *your* code
> should you link it with a GPL library. They are just putting conditions
> on your right to copy *their* code which gets linked into your program.
I'm happy to distribute the source to *their* code, under *their* terms,
so long as I can retain ownership of *my* code.
I'm glad that after gobs of pressure like this the FSF has bent enough to
allow us to do this, at least for some packages.
Maybe one day the rest of the GPL will become equally reasonable.
In the meantime, quit putting pressure on us to include GPL code that *isn't*
under the LGPL in 386BSD. Is it a deal?
Tim Smith
>The FSF has relied largely on donations to their cause; they have not tried
>to sell either software or programming. Due to a variety of conditions, that
>money is drying up, and the FSF is now trying to push themselves to get
>money -- which, of course, is exactly what other charitable organizations do.
>Until recently, the FSF relied largely on word-of-mouth, you see.
>
>It is entirely possible to work only on free software and still make a decent
>living.
>
But where does the money for that decent living come from? It's been proven
that you can make a decent living on free software in the current software
market, since you are doing it, but it's not clear that this would be true
if everyone tried to work only on free software.
How much of the money that goes to support free software comes from people
who are getting it by working on non-free software?
--Tim Smith
Bas de Bakker
>>>>> MacIntyre) said:
bm> I don't know how you define free, but I haven't paid money for any GNU
bm> software recently.
bm> They never said it was public-domain, they said it was free. As in, no
bm> money. As in, no money for the source. All you have to do is not
bm> charge people for any modifications you make and let them have the
bm> original source.
Sorry, but you've got it all wrong. Free (as in FSF or free software)
refers to freedom, not price. I can charge you $10,000 for modifying
one line of code in GNU emacs. In fact, I can sell you a tape with GNU
emacs and no modifications for $10,000. What I cannot do is impose
certain restrictions on what you do with the modified code.
The point is that you have to freedom to do the modification yourself
or hire someone else than me to do it for less. Also, you have the
freedom to look at what was modified, improve on it and redistribute
it yourself.
Go read the GPL, please!
Bas.
Paul
>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:57:23 GMT, cc_...@rcvie.co.at (Wolf Paul) said:
>
>Wolf> In article <D87-MAL.93...@byse.nada.kth.se>
>Wolf> d87...@byse.nada.kth.se (Mats Löfkvist) writes:
>> (In reply to a complaint about the GNU GPL)
>>
>>Why is it so hard to understand that code from the FSF comes with a licence
>>you have to accept if you want to use it? Is it because the code "is there"
>>in front of you, looking so available? Most people annoyed by the GPL terms
>>sounds like children in a candy store when they are told the candy is not
>>free to take just because it is lying there under their noses.
>
>Wolf> Maybe because chief proponents of the FSF assume such a morally superior,
>Wolf> holier-than-thou attitude about their supposedly "free" software which
>Wolf> in reality isn't free at all but encumbered with a rather complex set
>Wolf> of rules?
>
>I don't know how you define free, but I haven't paid money for any GNU
>software recently.
>
>They never said it was public-domain, they said it was free. As in, no
>money. As in, no money for the source. All you have to do is not
>charge people for any modifications you make and let them have the
>original source.
Actually, this is totally wrong. GNU people will go to great pains to
point out that FREE doesn't mean it costs nothing but that you are free
to do what you wish with it. This is blatantly untrue, there are sever
restrictions on your freedom regarding use of GPL software.
I'm actually quite sympathetic to the aims of the GPL. As a struggling
student I'm not that keen on the idea that some big corporation could
take some really great code I kindly put in the public domain and make a
packet from it, while I remain a struggling student (research students
in the UK really struggle, believe me).
What does annoy me though is the claims by people who don't really
understand the aims of the GPL that it is the solution for all public
domain code. The GPL was designed with a particular purpose in mind and
386bsd does not share these goals. The berkeley license is not intended
to prevent big corporations from making a fast buck from other peoples
work. In fact, it encourages use of new developoments by the industry as
a whole, whoever they may be and whatever their intentions.
On the other hand, my understanding of the GPL is to prevent big
corporations from getting a strangehold on softare technology. They are
quite welcome to use GPLed software so long as the technology within is
available for all who use it and likewise with any enhancements they
make. As I said, these are commendable aims which I agree with but there
are cases, such as 386bsd, where this is too restrictive and the
berkeley license is a more appropriate one.
Don't claim the GPL maintains total freedom, it doesn't and is not
meant to, it in fact has very specific restrictions for a specific
reason.
--
Paul Richards, University of Wales, College Cardiff
Internet: pa...@isl.cf.ac.uk
Blair MacIntyre
me> [ a lot of drivel ....]
Sorry about that post, which reflected a complete lack of a clue as to
the GNU GPL. I have read it, but it was a long time ago.
I basically broke the First Rule of Usenet Posting[tm]:
- thou shalt not post when you have been up all night, are in a bad
mood, and someone says something that annoys you.
How embarrasing.
Thanks for all the intelligent responses. Not. :-)
Adam David
>Actually, this is totally wrong. GNU people will go to great pains to
>point out that FREE doesn't mean it costs nothing but that you are free
>to do what you wish with it. This is blatantly untrue, there are sever
>restrictions on your freedom regarding use of GPL software.
Not quite. FREE as in freely available, i.e. unrestricted distribution.
Freedom to redistribute under the same distribution terms. You may not
restrict availability to the (source) code, because the software was
originally made available complete with source.
It has nothing to do with YOUR freedom, only the freedom that pertains to
the availability of the (complete) software.
--
Adam D. (ad...@veda.is)
Hendrik Boom
: compilers, lib's, and windowing wigits. I'm sure many companies would
: use GCC, etc. if the GPL wasn't so viral.
Some companies DO distribute gcc with their systems.
I presume they also distribute source code and/or have a specisl
licence from GNU or the authors. They are quite up-front
that they use gcc. Their cc man page explains that cc just calls
gcc from the FSF.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Try one or more of the following addresses to reply.
at work: hen...@vedge.com, iros1!vedge!hendrik
at home: uunet!ozrout!topoi!hendrik
Mark Newton
> In article <C5qCn...@sugar.neosoft.com> pe...@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
> "Ownership" of intellectual property comes down to the ability to control its
> distribution. If the FSF controls the distribution of my code, they own it.
>
> YOU choose to let the FSF control the distribution of your code when you
> decide to use FSF tools, code or whatever that makes the GPL to apply to
> your code.
... and that's just the point.
This entire debate started because of a decision to remove GPL'ed code
from the 386bsd kernel. You are correct: The programmer decides whether
or not to use it, and the official 386bsd developers have chosen not to.
> Why is it so hard to understand that code from the FSF comes with a licence
> you have to accept if you want to use it?
The argument started when someone claimed that they /didn't/ want to use
it.
Do you understand this thread at all?
- mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried an internal modem, new...@monty.apana.org.au
but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton
----- Voice: +61-8-3224071 --------------- Data: +61-8-3222915 -----
Peter Busser
>There is no objective
>truth that says that the GPL is better than any other copyright, it
>all depends on what you want to allow others to do.
But on the other hand, there is an objective truth about what the GPL permits
and what not. I'v just junked a message in which someone claimed that "free" as
in free software means "no money" aka "gratis". Bullshit. One of the first
things that the GNU manifesto explains is that it is "free" as in "freedom",
not as in "gratis".
People who didn't read the GNU manifesto don't kwow what they are talking
about.
Greetings,
Peter Busser
--
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.1
mQBNAivR0iMAAAECAN09YXJca456xXMDFDMieBoQ6/AfNM/CoJ+Abrnobr5m4Ioj
damian
Damian
--
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Damian Ivereigh | If you can't suss out what this is replying to |
| dam...@centrix.demon.co.uk | get a threaded news reader, like trn. :-) |
| Twickenham, U.K. | This is the best way to cut wasted traffic |
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
Mark Newton
> Boy people complain about anything. You charge for software, they say
> it's too much. You give it to them free, they complain they can't do
> whatever they damn well please with the source.
Straw-man attack. People are complaining about not being able to do whatever
they damn well please WITH THEIR OWN PROGRAMS.
Nobody is talking about software that has been "given to them for free,"
except, perhaps, for the GNU libraries. But those arguing against the
GPL aren't using GNU code, so that doesn't really enter into the equation.
Eric Youngdale
>b...@shadow.columbia.edu (Blair MacIntyre) writes:
>> Boy people complain about anything. You charge for software, they say
>> it's too much. You give it to them free, they complain they can't do
>> whatever they damn well please with the source.
>
>Straw-man attack. People are complaining about not being able to do whatever
>they damn well please WITH THEIR OWN PROGRAMS.
First of all, I am not aware of any programs that have been GPLed by
anyone other than the author. Could you provide a real example?? No one is
forcing anyone to add the GPL to their own program (although some GPL zealots
have been known to undiplomatically request the GPL be added).
Secondly, let us assume that there are cases where someone incorporates
your program into a GPL program of some kind. As I understand it the people
who write under the BSD copyright do not mind one bit if some company takes the
code that they write and incorporates it into a commercial product. What is
the difference between having your BSD copyright software being incorporated
into a commercial product over which you have no control and having your BSD
copyright software incorporated into a GPL program?? In one case you are proud
to have made a contribution, and in the other you feel "ripped off"?
-Eric
--
"When Grigor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he
found himself changed in his bed into a monstrous vermin."
-F. Kafka
Sean Eric Fagan
> First of all, I am not aware of any programs that have been GPLed by
>anyone other than the author. Could you provide a real example??
Bison.
Kelly Murray
In article <1993Apr23.0...@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, wirz...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes:
|> pe...@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> >You chose to give up ownership of your code to the FSF.
|>
|> Not correct. Putting code under the GPL does not make it the property
|> of the FSF.
|>
|> Other than that, I agree with Peter, as much as I prefer the GPL over
|> the BSD copyright. There's no need to flame people if they don't
|> copyright _their_ stuff the way you prefer. There is no objective
|> truth that says that the GPL is better than any other copyright, it
|> all depends on what you want to allow others to do.
|>
|> --
|> Lars.Wi...@helsinki.fi (finger wirz...@klaava.helsinki.fi)
I agree. You have identified the heart of the issue, which is where
the dialog should be focused:
*** What do you want other people to do with your code? ***
/// The GNU answer is that it is better to
prevent commercial companies from using it.
(not without sources, blah, blah, blah)
GNU want to see better GNU software.
/// The BSD answer is that it is better to also allow
commercial companies to use it.
We want to see better free software AND better commercial software.
So you decide which you believe, and release your code accordingly.
-Kelly Murray (k...@cis.ufl.edu)
Kelly Murray
**(I assumed too much prior knowledge on the part of the reader)
In article <1993Apr23.0...@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, wirz...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes:
|> pe...@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> >You chose to give up ownership of your code to the FSF.
|>
|> Not correct. Putting code under the GPL does not make it the property
|> of the FSF.
|>
|> Other than that, I agree with Peter, as much as I prefer the GPL over
|> the BSD copyright. There's no need to flame people if they don't
|> copyright _their_ stuff the way you prefer. There is no objective
|> truth that says that the GPL is better than any other copyright, it
|> all depends on what you want to allow others to do.
|>
|> --
|> Lars.Wi...@helsinki.fi (finger wirz...@klaava.helsinki.fi)
I agree. You have identified the heart of the issue, which is where
the dialog should be focused:
*** What do you want other people to do with your code? ***
/// The GNU answer is that it is better to
prevent commercial companies from using it to
create new and improved proprietary versions, or
incorporating it into existing proprietary software.
GNU wants its work to be used to only create better GNU software.
/// The BSD answer is that it is better to also allow
proprietary work to be created with the software.
BSD wants to see better free software AND better proprietary software.
So you decide which answer you believe will create more benefits
for both computer USERS and computer PROGRAMMERS in the world
Robert Chen
>software recently.
>
>They never said it was public-domain, they said it was free. As in, no
>money. As in, no money for the source. All you have to do is not
>charge people for any modifications you make and let them have the
>original source.
You are a fool. Whay are there so many Cliff Claven's on the net
these days?
The "Free" in "Free Software" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PRICE.
You cal SELL gnu software for whatever you can get for it. "Free"
means the freedom to use, modify, and distribute the source.
The FSF people would laugh themselves off usenet if they read this
thread. This is pathetic.
-Rob
Richard Gooch
Yee gads! When will this stop?? If this goes on, I wouldn't be supprised if
someone went over the edge and started posting:
"GNU License (verbatim): READ THIS BEFORE POSTING!!"
Regards,
Richard Gooch,
rgo...@atnf.csiro.au
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want computer privacy/ security? Use PGP: public key encryption.
Don't know what it is? Ask me.
PGP Public Key available on request, or: finger rgo...@lynx.atnf.csiro.au
Simon Richardson
>
> I agree. You have identified the heart of the issue, which is where
> the dialog should be focused:
>
> *** What do you want other people to do with your code? ***
>
> /// The GNU answer is that it is better to
> (not without sources, blah, blah, blah)
>
> /// The BSD answer is that it is better to also allow
>
> So you decide which you believe, and release your code accordingly.
>
> -Kelly Murray (k...@cis.ufl.edu)
k...@cis.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) writes:
>
> I agree. You have identified the heart of the issue, which is where
> the dialog should be focused:
>
> *** What do you want other people to do with your code? ***
>
> /// The GNU answer is that it is better to
> prevent commercial companies from using it to
> create new and improved proprietary versions, or
> incorporating it into existing proprietary software.
> GNU wants its work to be used to only create better GNU software.
>
> /// The BSD answer is that it is better to also allow
> proprietary work to be created with the software.
> BSD wants to see better free software AND better proprietary software.
>
> So you decide which answer you believe will create more benefits
> for both computer USERS and computer PROGRAMMERS in the world
> and release your code accordingly.
>
> -Kelly Murray (k...@cis.ufl.edu)
>
Oops. I got onto this thread late, 'cos I've only recently arrived on this
newsgroup. I normally spend my time on other, less practical and more "bull
oriented" newsgroups, that deal with issues like "how do we think, feel and
act". (EG alt.polyamory)
***112: ^ Wierdo error
In these other newsgroups, a lot of the threads can be boiled down to "this
is the moral way to behave" v "no one can stop me from doing what I want to
do" argument. It all gets a bit fundamental, and the old hands switch off.
Tired of all this, I go to a group that might show me a little of how to
manage a 386BSD setup. And what do I find?
Well, come on people. At least head your posts either "I feel I have a
right to tell people what to do" or "I have a right to do as I please".
That way we will have some chance of figuring out why people are flaming one
another.
I use 386BSD because it seems to work, and it lets me work on UNIX without
lashing out quantities of groats. (I don't *have* quantities of groats.
:-( ) I am not sure if, should I develop a useful UNIX application and
attempt to market it (quite likely) I would switch to SCO UNIX for the
sales. But that depends on how I interpret the licensing agreements.
It also depends on how much I want to be involved in "UNIX support". You
know, like answering telephones and driving the country in vans? You know,
like *boring* stuff?
When I release code, I either give it away or sell it. I don't worry about
rights. If I want to worry about rights, I sell it to someone and let them
worry. If I don't, I don't.
To quote Benjy Mouse (a hyperintellegent pandimensional galactic being) "If
it comes to a question of taking the money and running, then I for one could
do with the exercise."
Simon
---
"A thousand violins cloy very rapidly without percussion"
John Fowles
(Quote from Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but Douglas Adams)
Mark Newton
> In article <9304...@monty.apana.org.au> new...@monty.apana.org.au (Mark Newton) writes:
> >b...@shadow.columbia.edu (Blair MacIntyre) writes:
> >> Boy people complain about anything. You charge for software, they say
> >> it's too much. You give it to them free, they complain they can't do
> >> whatever they damn well please with the source.
> >
> >Straw-man attack. People are complaining about not being able to do whatever
> >they damn well please WITH THEIR OWN PROGRAMS.
>
> First of all, I am not aware of any programs that have been GPLed by
> anyone other than the author. Could you provide a real example?? No one is
> forcing anyone to add the GPL to their own program (although some GPL zealots
> have been known to undiplomatically request the GPL be added).
I think you're missing the point.
The BSDites in this thread have been arguing from the standpoint of a
person who doesn't use the GPL for there code at all. Therefore, it
is fallacious to contend that the GPL is forcing them to do anything at
all.
My posting was directed against Blair MacIntyre's comments, in which
he spoke about software that has been /given/ to the complainers. The
complainers haven't been saying anything at all about that; Hence Blair's
posting constituted a straw-man attack, or perhaps a non-sequitur.
To expand further on the point I made in response to Blair: Copylefting
the software that you write involves implicit restrictions upon its
distribution. Notably, its distribution is prohibited unless source
is provided with it. Basically, whoever distributes the software you
write is legally obliged to make it as easy for someone else to obtain
as it was for them to obtain.
I (and other BSDites) have been arguing against the GPL because I don't want
to force those restrictions, or any other restrictions, upon people who
choose to distribute /my/ software. I want to make it completely,
utterly, totally free. It doesn't matter whether IBM chooses to hijack
it, enlarge its size and reduce its speed by factors of twenty and sell
it for half a million dollars - I just don't care.
While people like Blair MacIntyre continue to confuse the issues at hand
by posting irrelevancies, people like you don't have a prayer of
understanding these simple concepts.
Yours in illumination,