From: Brandon.Vanevery@launchpad.unc.edu (Brandon Vanevery)
Subject: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 22:53:54 GMT
Both free unixes are deemed reliable by many sources.
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
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: 17 Apr 1993 00:22:18 -0400
In article <1993Apr15.225354.18654@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Brandon.Vanevery@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.
--
\ / Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
/\ \ PGP public key available on request. MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
Scheme White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
From: hlu@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (HJ Lu)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 93 16:15:16 GMT
In article <1qo0lq$1hm4@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr15.225354.18654@samba.oit.unc.edu>
>Brandon.Vanevery@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.
From: nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 17:54:31 GMT
In article <1993Apr17.161516.2794@serval.net.wsu.edu>
hlu@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (HJ Lu) writes:
>In article <1qo0lq$1hm4@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>>
>>In article <1993Apr15.225354.18654@samba.oit.unc.edu>
>>Brandon.Vanevery@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;
--
osynw@terra.oscs.montana.edu | Still trying to find a good reason for
nate@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
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: 17 Apr 1993 15:01:58 -0400
In article <1993Apr17.161516.2794@serval.net.wsu.edu>
hlu@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
bogus. It's just very carefully chosen which parts are worthwhile,
which aren't, and which need to be redone.
--
\ / Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
/\ \ PGP public key available on request. MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
Scheme White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
From: wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 19:30:29 GMT
nate@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!)
I would be interested if you would be kind enough to elaborate on
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.
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.)
(The article I'm replying to might have been a complete flame-bait,
articles of that type usually are, but sometimes I can't resist
answering such articles. Color me a sucker.)
--
Lars.Wirzenius@helsinki.fi (finger wirzeniu@klaava.helsinki.fi)
MS-DOS, you can't live with it, you can live without it.
From: hlu@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (HJ Lu)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 93 19:05:17 GMT
In article < 1993Apr17.175431.25015@coe.montana.edu>
nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes:
>In article < 1993Apr17.161516.2794@serval.net.wsu.edu>
>hlu@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (HJ Lu) writes:
>>In article < 1qo0lq$1hm4@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>>mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>>>
>>>In article < 1993Apr15.225354.18654@samba.oit.unc.edu>
>>>Brandon.Vanevery@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.
From: hlu@eecs.wsu.edu (HJ Lu)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 93 19:43:41 GMT
In article <1qpk76$bbl@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu>,
mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
|>
|> In article <1993Apr17.161516.2794@serval.net.wsu.edu>
|> hlu@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.
From: nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 20:57:15 GMT
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.
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
--
osynw@terra.oscs.montana.edu | Still trying to find a good reason for
nate@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
From: nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 21:03:03 GMT
In article <1993Apr17.193029.5707@klaava.helsinki.fi>
wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes:
>nate@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!)
>
>I would be interested if you would be kind enough to elaborate on
>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
--
osynw@terra.oscs.montana.edu | Still trying to find a good reason for
nate@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
From: jemenake@trumpet.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: 17 Apr 93 23:10:00 GMT
nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes:
>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
jemenake@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
From: adam@netcom.com (Adam J. Richter)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 00:02:41 GMT
In article <1993Apr17.175431.25015@coe.montana.edu>
nate@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!)
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
adam@netcom.com yggdrasil@netcom.com
Another member of the League for Programming Freedom (lpf@uunet.uu.net).
From: damian@centrix.demon.co.uk (damian)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 09:39:24 +0000
In article <1993Apr17.231000.103368@zeus.calpoly.edu>
jemenake@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?!?!
>
>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 |
| damian@centrix.demon.co.uk | get a threaded news reader, like trn. :-) |
| Twickenham, U.K. | This is the best way to cut wasted traffic |
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
From: d87-mal@byse.nada.kth.se (Mats Lfkvist)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: 18 Apr 93 15:54:28 GMT
In article <1993Apr17.205715.11278@coe.montana.edu>
nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes:
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-mal@nada.kth.se
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 20:20:56 GMT
> 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.
--
Peter da Silva. <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' Oletko halannut suttasi tänään?
'U`
Tarjoilija, tämä ateria elää vielä.
From: sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 03:30:10 GMT
In article <C5p4Ix.G9n@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@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.
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.
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 12:14:11 GMT
In article <C5poEp.8Jw@kithrup.com> sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
> In article <C5p4Ix.G9n@sugar.neosoft.com>
> peter@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.
--
Peter da Silva. <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' Oletko halannut suttasi tänään?
'U`
Tarjoilija, tämä ateria elää vielä.
From: iiitac@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 12:16:07 GMT
In article <1993Apr17.175431.25015@coe.montana.edu>
nate@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!)
>
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
From: dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: 19 Apr 93 19:58:55 GMT
In article <9304181046.aa28257@gate.demon.co.uk>
damian@centrix.demon.co.uk (damian) writes:
> In article <1993Apr17.231000.103368@zeus.calpoly.edu>
> jemenake@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 |
> | damian@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 <dwex@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 <xfree86@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
From: d87-mal@byse.nada.kth.se (Mats Löfkvist)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 22:01:14 GMT
In article < C5qCnn.5Kw@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@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.
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-mal@nada.kth.se My words but a whisper - your deafness a SHOUT.
From: jemenake@trumpet.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: 20 Apr 93 11:05:21 GMT
dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat) writes:
>damian@centrix.demon.co.uk (damian) writes:
>>jemenake@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
jemenake@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
From: cc_paul@rcvie.co.at (Wolf Paul)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Reply-To: cc_paul@rcvie.co.at (Wolf N. Paul)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:57:23 GMT
In article <D87-MAL.93Apr19230114@byse.nada.kth.se>
d87-mal@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.
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 wnp@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)
From: dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 14:56:59 GMT
In article <1993Apr20.110521.180705@zeus.calpoly.edu>
jemenake@trumpet.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
> dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat) writes:
> >damian@centrix.demon.co.uk (damian) writes:
> >>jemenake@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
> jemenake@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 <dwex@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 <xfree86@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
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 17:58:51 GMT
In article <D87-MAL.93Apr19230114@byse.nada.kth.se>
d87-mal@byse.nada.kth.se (Mats Löfkvist) writes:
> In article <C5qCnn.5Kw@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@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.
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. <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' Har du kramat din varg idag?
'U`
My Apple-II has more RAM than my Mac!
From: bm@shadow.columbia.edu (Blair MacIntyre)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Reply-To: Blair MacIntyre <bm@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 19:04:30 GMT
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:57:23 GMT, cc_paul@rcvie.co.at (Wolf Paul) said:
Wolf> In article <D87-MAL.93Apr19230114@byse.nada.kth.se>
Wolf> d87-mal@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 --- bm@cs.columbia.edu --- CS Department, Columbia University
"You drive, you kill." --- from the movie "Roadkill"
From: wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 07:31:10 GMT
peter@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.Wirzenius@helsinki.fi (finger wirzeniu@klaava.helsinki.fi)
MS-DOS, you can't live with it, you can live without it.
From: newton@monty.apana.org.au (Mark Newton)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 93 17:16:27 +0930
bm@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.
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.
- mark
====================================================================
I tried an internal modem, newton@monty.apana.org.au
but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton
===== Voice: +61=8=3224071 =============== Data: +61=8=3222915 =====
From: eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 18:29:35 GMT
In article <930425471@monty.apana.org.au>
newton@monty.apana.org.au (Mark Newton) writes:
>bm@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
From: newton@monty.apana.org.au (Mark Newton)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 93 20:47:32 +0930
eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale) writes:
> In article <930425471@monty.apana.org.au>
newton@monty.apana.org.au (Mark Newton) writes:
> >bm@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,
- mark
====================================================================
I tried an internal modem, newton@monty.apana.org.au
but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton
===== Voice: +61=8=3224071 =============== Data: +61=8=3222915 =====
From: eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Date: 30 Apr 93 22:54:24 GMT
To begin with, I would like to reiterate the fact that I have no
problem with people using the BSD style of copyright. I am not interested in
converting people who have already made up their minds, but in the interests of
reducing the animosity between the two camps, I have one question
that I would like to have answered.
In article <9304299328@monty.apana.org.au> newton@monty.apana.org.au (Mark Newton) writes:
>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.
I guess I do not understand the difference between IBM "hijacking" your
program and a GPLer "hijacking" your program. Consider the two following
scenarios:
1) If IBM uses something that you wrote, then they have restricted your
software by making their version of the source unavailable, and making you pay
money for the binaries. You still have your original version which you can do
with whatever you want, and this is what remains totally free.
2) On the other hand, if someone incorporates something you wrote into
a GPL program your software is also restricted, but in a different way.
Nonetheless, you still have your original sources that have your original
copyright, and this also remains totally free.
As far as I can see it, the only difference between the two is that the
nature of the restrictions are different. In either case, you still have your
original code which is under your own less restrictive copyright, and if you
wish you can enhance and modify it to have all of the features and capabilities
of the more restricted version.
Could someone explain why most people who write under the BSD copyright
remain ambivalent about scenario 1, but find scenario 2 so objectionable?
There is one important difference that I can see, and I make no claim
that it has any basis in truth, but I would be interested in seeing some
reaction from the BSD side of the fence. Since code flows more easily from BSD
-> GPL and not the other way around, I wonder if there is a sense of resentment
that BSD programs are contributing more to GPL projects than GPL programs
contribute to BSD projects?
Of course, another possibility is that the proselytizing from the more
strident GPL adherents is responsible for this mess :-).
-Eric
--
"When Grigor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he
found himself changed in his bed into a monstrous vermin."
-F. Kafka