From: nil <d...@not.org>
Subject: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard
Date: 1999/06/19
Message-ID: <376B1A8C.719E@not.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 491318720
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: mail2n...@nym.alias.net
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmas...@nym.alias.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: d...@not.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
It appears that Rex Ballard is currently an employee of IBM.
The factual content of his posts speaks for itself.
As a general comment, BSD and its related works forms the
basis of the modern computing environment. Lets keep it
and the culture which gave rise to it and makes it successful
healthy and growing.
From: r...@candle.pha.pa.us (Bruce Momjian)
Subject: Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard
Date: 1999/06/20
Message-ID: <376c7878.3f58$2d5@news.op.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 491628975
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org>
X-OpNet-Trace: news1.op.net 929855608 16216.725 s5-03.ppp.op.net i/root c/local
X-Complaints-To: Abuse Role <abuse@op.net>, We Care <abuse@newsread.com>
X-Trace: monger.newsread.com 929855610 209.152.193.22 (Sun, 20 Jun 1999 01:13:30 EDT)
Organization: OpNet -- Greater Philadelphia Internet Service
User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990413 ("Endemoniada") (UNIX) (BSD/OS/4.0.1 (i386))
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 01:13:30 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
I have followed this discussion, and while there is a lot of it, there
aren't many specific examples. Let me suggest one: BSDI
They took the BSD4.4(386/BSD) code, hired many of the departing BSD
folks, and developed BSD/OS based on it. Now, if the BSD code was GPL,
would those people have started a company to fix and enhance the BSD4.4
OS. I don't think so.
Clearly, once they started, they "owned" their copy of the source, and
unleashed a team of programmers to enhance it, knowing that their
changes would not be used by any other OS without their consent. It is
hard to imagine how it would have made any economic sense to do this
with GPL. They could have sold their new OS, but any other company
could have come along and also sold their OS at 1/100th the price(no
development costs) and put them out of business. (To this day, BSDI
ships a "contrib" CDROM to every BSD/OS site, which contains all GPL and
much non-BSDI source code. Only "Source licenses holders" receive
OS/kernel source, which currently costs an additional $2k.)
Consider Redhad, Caldera, etc. They are adding value "on top of" the
OS, but the kernel is pretty much the same for all of them. In fact,
aside from some tweaks, they really aren't involved in enhancing the
lower levels of Linux, and economically, they really can't. They could
put 100 programmers on it, but once they do a release, all their
competitors have all their enhancements, and the economic benefit of
those 100 programmers is gone. Sure, Linux is better for it, but those
100 programmers aren't seeing an increased sales rate to pay their
salaries.
So, the GPL vs. BSDL issue really boils down to whether a particular
piece of software is going to need a commercial organization to
improve/enhance it in the future. If is doesn't, GPL attracts more
non-paid developers to work on the project. If it does require a
commercial team that can put man-years into the project and needs to
recover the costs of doing that, GPL will prevent that from happening,
and a commercial entity will have to start from scratch in developing
the code so they can "own the code."
The answer to that question also suggests the question of whether
non-paid developers are the future for "all" software. If it is, then
GPL is the way to go. If it is not, then GPL use needs to be decided
carefully depending on the perceived need for later commercialization of
the code. Commercialization of code is not a bad thing. It would be
nice if all software could be developed by unpaid developers.
Fortunately for Linux, there are enough non-paid programmers working on
it that GPL is not a problem. Maybe all software will some day have
enough non-paid programmers so commercial software organizations with
teams of paid programmers are no longer required. Maybe not.
Here are some short examples. I have a Viewsonic 15" digital flat panel
monitor with ATI XpertLCD card. Xig has a commercial X server that
drives it. XFree86 doesn't support it. The cost of the X server is
worth it, because without it, I would be forced to us another display
device. The cost of BSDI is well worth it for me, because of the high
reliability and performance of the OS is well worth the cost. Free
software is nice, but for me, the cost of commercial software is a
bargain considering the benefits it provides. (This doesn't mean I
don't support open software. I am a PostgreSQL developer.)
Who do you want to write your heart monitor software?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
r...@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From: "H.J. Lu" <h...@lucon.org>
Subject: Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard
Date: 1999/06/20
Message-ID: <376D0D35.2EB3AA42@lucon.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 491771539
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <376c7878.3f58$2d5@news.op.net>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarQ.com
X-Trace: 929893687.086.58 QEV6BQXYF4296D1F9C qube-01.us-ca.remarq.com
Organization: Lu Consulting
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:48:07 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Consider Redhad, Caldera, etc. They are adding value "on top of" the
> OS, but the kernel is pretty much the same for all of them. In fact,
> aside from some tweaks, they really aren't involved in enhancing the
> lower levels of Linux, and economically, they really can't. They could
> put 100 programmers on it, but once they do a release, all their
> competitors have all their enhancements, and the economic benefit of
> those 100 programmers is gone. Sure, Linux is better for it, but those
> 100 programmers aren't seeing an increased sales rate to pay their
> salaries.
I am working for a Linux company writing software for
Linux. Let me tell you that
1. We do kernel work and lots of it.
2. Yes, everything we do for Linux kernel is/will be
under GPL.
3. Yes, we do get paid.
BTW, if you are really good at very low level Unix/Linux
stuff and want to write GPL code for Linux, you can send
me your resume.
H.J.
From: "Philip Warner" <p...@rhyme.com.au>
Subject: Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard
Date: 1999/06/21
Message-ID: <87mb3.193$t01.19123@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>
X-Deja-AN: 492009267
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <376c7878.3f58$2d5@news.op.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
X-Complaints-To: abuse@telstra.net
X-Trace: nsw.nnrp.telstra.net 929951300 139.130.54.222 (Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:48:20 EST)
Organization: Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:48:20 EST
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
At 01:15 20/06/99 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>I have followed this discussion, and while there is a lot of it, there
>aren't many specific examples. Let me suggest one: BSDI
>
>They took the BSD4.4(386/BSD) code, hired many of the departing BSD
>folks, and developed BSD/OS based on it. Now, if the BSD code was GPL,
>would those people have started a company...
>
...
>... Only "Source licenses holders" receive
>OS/kernel source, which currently costs an additional $2k.)
This is one model for development. There have already been counterexamples
to it being the only model. My personal experience as a consultant and
developer suggests your model is probably not even the best. I have had
occasion to use the support services of a number of the larger IT companies,
and while the support can be very professional, it leaves a lot to be
desired:
1. No commercial company will say "The optimizer code is stuffed, we're not
sure how to fix it but we're working on it. Use a work-around". Instead they
will leave you in the dark, saying "It has been passed on to engineering,
and we'll let you know when it is fixed" [the last part only sometimes]. For
me it is far more useful to know that the bug is a real problem that may
take a while to fix. Open source even gives me the *choice* to employ
someone to fix the code (especially for those products that have commercial
support), and I am happy that such fixes be made public.
2. Access to the developers of commercial software is rare, and controlled
even at the best of times. When you do get to talk to them at a conference,
for example, they are totally unwilling to talk about futures. Contrast this
to Linux or PgSQL. Future plans for a database are very important, and
affect my choices in database design.
3. Quality. There are many aspects to quality; the most important in my view
are: does it work? when it doesn't work, is it easily fixed? OK, PgSQL is
not as reliable or robust as Dec/Rdb, but I am not a 24-Hour shop with
mission-critical applications running all the time, so I don't need Rdb.
Experience with bugs in PgSQL and in other database products suggests that
PgSQL bugs get fixed quicker. Frequently a new patch appears within a day of
a bug report. Patches for known bugs can be downloaded from the mailing list
immediately. Linux is another example; it is more reliable than NT, and
again, the few bugs that I have reported have been fixed in days. Contrast
this to Microsoft's support for NT! For the GPL products I use, I would say
the oevrall quality is higher than commercial offerings.
>Consider Redhad, Caldera, etc. They are adding value "on top of" the
>OS, but the kernel is pretty much the same for all of them. In fact,
>aside from some tweaks, they really aren't involved in enhancing the
>lower levels of Linux, and economically, they really can't. They could
>put 100 programmers on it, but once they do a release, all their
>competitors have all their enhancements, and the economic benefit of
>those 100 programmers is gone.
Others have already pointed out that your facts are wrong here, and so too
is the philosophical point:
For an existing *large* GPL project, any additional code developed by 100
programmers will require 100 programmers to maintain and enhance. If the
original programmers are all fired, then the product becomes unsupportable
and worthless - you would be very unwise to buy it.
Furthermore, since most of the money for GPL'd products comes from support
and ancillary sales (eg. commercial products based on the s/w in question),
for anyone to become competitive with the original developer they would
require a substantial investment up front (to understand the code), and a
continuing investment in development and support.
Rather than compete they would be better off enhancing some other part of
the software and thereby developing their own niche. All parties can then
use the improved software. This approach makes the product stronger, so
increaes market share, and solidifies the basis of the two companies.
>Sure, Linux is better for it, but those
>100 programmers aren't seeing an increased sales rate to pay their
>salaries.
This is true; many 'volunteer' programmers do not see fair monetary
recompense in the short term. But the small amounts of unpaid work I have
done has been a good learning experiance, enjoyable, interesting, and made
me feel good about the work I do. This is at least *some* compensation,
ignoring for the moment the competitive edge such experience gives me in the
market place. Combine this with the fact that many commercial companies see
the value in paying their employees to work on GPL code, and I think you
will find that 'those 100 programmers *are* seeing an increase *in their
remuneration*. In some cases they may only have jobs because of it.
>So, the GPL vs. BSDL issue really boils down to whether a particular
>piece of software is going to need a commercial organization to
>improve/enhance it in the future.
No, it does not. It boils down to whether or not the internet community is
large enough to continue to produce high quality voluntary contributions to
projects. There are always people and companies who are unwilling to work
for anything other than hard cash, especially in the current economic
millieu, but GPL will work as long as developers see value in GPL.
I am lucky: I get paid reasonably well for the work I do, and have a lot of
work (at least, at the moment!). This means I have the luxury to be able to
contribute my time (in small ways) to selected voluntary 'clients'. These
are generally organizations that have little or no money to spare, and could
not afford a programmer under any circumstances. I could not help them if
products like PgSQL and Linux were not available and of such high quality.
And I strongly believe that they would not be of such high quality if the
source was not open.
>If it does require a
>commercial team that can put man-years into the project and needs to
>recover the costs of doing that, GPL will prevent that from happening,
>and a commercial entity will have to start from scratch in developing
>the code so they can "own the code."
This is clearly not true, as has been argued elsewhere.
>The answer to that question also suggests the question of whether
>non-paid developers are the future for "all" software.
Even I don't suggest it's the way for all software. Our current social and
legal structures pretty much require that someone take responsibility and
due care for some things (eg. heart monitoring software). The best way to
show 'due care' is to buy commercial software from a reputable company. The
*best* software may still be freely available on the internet, but the
safest software (ie. readily available for legal action), will always be
commercial.
>If it is, then
>GPL is the way to go. If it is not, then GPL use needs to be decided
>carefully depending on the perceived need for later commercialization of
>the code.
No, it depends on the perceived niche for the code; if I come up with a
hardware/software-neural-database-thingy, then I'm NOT going to make the
software open source - it would disclose commercial secrets. Similarly, if I
am the sole developer of a complete, high quality, working product, then I
am *inclined* to keep it commercial - but ONLY if I plan to try to sell it
or market it. If I do neither of those things, then it should be made
public.
If, on the other hand, I develop something useful, but not world-breaking,
that may still need work, then I will release it into the (internet) world,
and hope some other person:
1. Finds it useful and saves them time, so they can do other GPL work.
2. Likes it and enhances it (thereby saving me time).
If enough people find such code useful, it may eventually become a
'PgSQL-scale' project, and I'll be very happy.
>Commercialization of code is not a bad thing.
But you need a pretty good reason to do it!
>Fortunately for Linux, there are enough non-paid programmers working on
>it that GPL is not a problem.
Not to mention the paid programmers...
>Maybe all software will some day have
>enough non-paid programmers so commercial software organizations with
>teams of paid programmers are no longer required. Maybe not.
I get paid to write software for people. The nature of my work means that
unless otherwise specified, I own the copyright. I get a lot of work because
my clients are happy, and I work fast. I work fast because I reuse my own
code (I will never GPL my own software libraries!). If more commercial
organizations pooled their code (eg. via GPL) then I would be out of a job,
and they would save a great deal of money. This won't happen because most
organization have mistaken beliefs about their 'competitive edge', even when
it relates to non-core business.
Teams of programmers will always be employed either to support and enhance
software (legacy code, or GPL'd stuff), or to develop 'proprietry' code
(neural-database-thingy), for projects that are too specialised to warrant
general interest (electronic fuel injection systems), or for
mission-critical code (heart monitoring machines). Only the first in this
list is GPL'd, but it will be the largest category.
We are the factory workers of the new millennium - as such, over time we
will probably face more 'piece-work', than new development work, but we will
have work.
>Here are some short examples. I have a Viewsonic 15" digital flat panel
>monitor with ATI XpertLCD card. Xig has a commercial X server that
>drives it. XFree86 doesn't support it.
Usually there is a reason for this. XFree used not to support Diamond
Stealth cards, until Diamond made some data public (they presumably believed
the data gave them a 'competitive edge'). By then I had bought another card.
>The cost of the X server is
>worth it, because without it, I would be forced to us another display
>device.
If the X-server was $1000, you would have bought another monitor and say
'the price of the monitor was worth it, because without it I could not run
Linux'. Everything is relative; the best solution was that you had to pay no
money, and XFree supported the monitor. Xig may even have made more sales
into the Linux market if they made their X Server GPL. I presume they are a
hardware manufacturer? Most people give away their drivers for a very good
reason...
>The cost of BSDI is well worth it for me, because of the high
>reliability and performance of the OS is well worth the cost.
I could say the same about Linux. My linux box is substantially more
reliable than my NT box. You could at this point say "Yes, but NT is
Microsoft", but my point is that Microsoft is probably the embodiment of the
anti-GPL philosophy.
>Free
>software is nice, but for me, the cost of commercial software is a
>bargain considering the benefits it provides. (This doesn't mean I
>don't support open software. I am a PostgreSQL developer.)
For me the support, flexibility, and reliability of the GPL software I use
is substantially superior to the commercial offerings.
>
>Who do you want to write your heart monitor software?
>
As somebody else said, "someone my family can sue". But in a more serious
sense, heart monitoring software is probably a small niche that *does*
require 'due care' be taken. It will be commercial for a long time to come.
Personally I would prefer it be released under a GPL, then 1000's of
programmers with heart problems will find the bugs before they kill
someone...
At 22:14 20/06/99 -0400, Clark Evans wrote:
>Thus, although you you have found some noteable exceptions to
>Bruce's comments, the general thrust of his argument still
>holds -- if the software distribution market was competitive,
>companies like RedHat, etc., could not afford to fund open
>source development.
I do not agree with this. Red Hat is *not* competing on the basis that it's
source is better. The fact that Red Hat is a 'standard' Linux distribution
is crucial to it's sales. What the likes of Red Hat use to define themselves
is how they package the software (no disrepsect meant): the quality of RPM,
the SUPPORT they provide, and the fact that everything is open. If 'Blue
Hat' came along and wanted to compete, they would not try to out-code Red
Hat, they would try to provide better installation, support and distribution
mechanisms.
>However, RedHat's business is NOT distribution, it is
>standardization. And this allows them to spend money
>on open source _if_ it is in their best interest. I would
>argue that it is in their best interest now, but it
>won't be in a few years after they have a fimly
>established monopoly.
In fact the *only* way Red Hat can become a monopoly is by 'owning' the
code. They may dominate, by force of numbers of developers, but so long as
the GPL applies, they only own the good will they generate and the
distribution and support business they establish.
This does not seem too unreasonable, but maybe I'm naieve.
>Thus, your exceptions point to a deeper problem with
>open source, rather than positive support for it.
The only real problem for open source is ensuring that the 'reference'
copies of the software are not all controlled by one company. Which is
another reason why it is in developers interests to continue contributing to
open source projects. If no-one contributes, Red Hat will have an effective
monopoly.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: +61-03-5367 7422 | _________ \
Fax: +61-03-5367 7430 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
From: pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/21
Message-ID: <7kldga$o0m@web.nmti.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492085695
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <376c7878.3f58$2d5@news.op.net>
<87mb3.193$t01.19123@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>
Organization: Bailey Network Management
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
In article <87mb3.193$t01.19...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
Philip Warner <p...@rhyme.com.au> wrote:
>I do not agree with this. Red Hat is *not* competing on the basis that it's
>source is better. The fact that Red Hat is a 'standard' Linux distribution
>is crucial to it's sales. What the likes of Red Hat use to define themselves
>is how they package the software (no disrepsect meant): the quality of RPM,
Heh. RPM is more closed, in terms of its use of re-use of existing code
and compatibility with other Open Source and Open Systems software tools
and interfaces, than any of the competing package managers. It's also
trailed the FreeBSD package/ports system in functionality.
It's a perfect example of why Open Source doesn't change the essentially
Murphy-driven nature of the market. In a perfect Open Source / Open Systems
market, people would have taken the FreeBSD package manager, which uses
more open interfaces and got rolling before RPM, and extended and enhanced
it.
But that didn't happen. Why is it so?
I submit that it's the ongoing flood of FUD both pro and con about the
GPL, and that this political side to the GPL is really hurting the whole
Open Software movement. It's distorting the marketplace of ideas and
producing this sort of significantly non-optimal result.
Obviously the GPL isn't going to go away, but is there a way of defusing its
political edge somewhat? Obviously that has to be done in such a way that
RMS can save face, and I have no idea how to get there from here.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
`-_-' Ar rug tú barróg ar do mhactíre inniu?
'U` "Be vewy vewy quiet...I'm hunting Jedi." -- Darth Fudd
From: t...@y.jdyson.com (John S. Dyson)
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/21
Message-ID: <7klmvk$1a38@enews3.newsguy.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492154219
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <376c7878.3f58$2d5@news.op.net>
<87mb3.193$t01.19123@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net> <7kldga$o0m@web.nmti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
In article <7kldga$...@web.nmti.com>,
pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
> Obviously the GPL isn't going to go away, but is there a way of defusing its
> political edge somewhat? Obviously that has to be done in such a way that
> RMS can save face, and I have no idea how to get there from here.
>
Why should RMS be able to save face, when the joke was created by
HIM, at the expense of alot of other people?
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dy...@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid
jdy...@nc.com | and it irritates the pig.
From: j...@dementia.mishnet ()
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/21
Message-ID: <slrn7mstss.jhv.jedi@dementia.mishnet>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492175727
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <376c7878.3f58$2d5@news.op.net>
<87mb3.193$t01.19123@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net> <7kldga$o0m@web.nmti.com>
<7klmvk$1a38@enews3.newsguy.com>
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarQ.com
X-Trace: 929986886.887.78 RYQ3FTI5P1FA118EAC qube-01.us-ca.remarq.com
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - The Internet's Discussion Network
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.6 (UNIX)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:41:26 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
On 21 Jun 1999 15:50:12 GMT, John S. Dyson <t...@y.jdyson.com> wrote:
>In article <7kldga$...@web.nmti.com>,
> pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>
>> Obviously the GPL isn't going to go away, but is there a way of defusing its
>> political edge somewhat? Obviously that has to be done in such a way that
>> RMS can save face, and I have no idea how to get there from here.
>>
>Why should RMS be able to save face, when the joke was created by
>HIM, at the expense of alot of other people?
RMS isn't the one that wants to save face. It's the would
be profiteers that want to put a kinder gentler face on
free software.
RMS save face? Surely you jest.,
--
bash: the power to toast your registry in style... |||
/ | \
Seeking sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
From: pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/21
Message-ID: <7kmceg$b1r@web.nmti.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492265996
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <7kldga$o0m@web.nmti.com>
<7klmvk$1a38@enews3.newsguy.com> <slrn7mstss.jhv.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
Organization: Bailey Network Management
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
In article <slrn7mstss.jhv.j...@dementia.mishnet>,
<j...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
> RMS isn't the one that wants to save face. It's the would
> be profiteers that want to put a kinder gentler face on
> free software.
I'm not a "would-be profiteer". I've sold one program as shareware, many
years ago, and I've long since released the source to that one.
I want other people to profit so they'll make cool products that play well
with their peers, instead of screwed up incompatible systems that don't
work as well and don't interoperate.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
`-_-' Ar rug tú barróg ar do mhactíre inniu?
'U` "Be vewy vewy quiet...I'm hunting Jedi." -- Darth Fudd
From: j...@dementia.mishnet ()
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/21
Message-ID: <slrn7mtkl5.kkk.jedi@dementia.mishnet>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492321083
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <7kldga$o0m@web.nmti.com>
<7klmvk$1a38@enews3.newsguy.com> <slrn7mstss.jhv.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7kmceg$b1r@web.nmti.com>
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarQ.com
X-Trace: 930013016 PLBOPJC1P1FA118EAC usenet76.supernews.com
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here!
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.6 (UNIX)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
On 21 Jun 1999 21:56:32 GMT, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn7mstss.jhv.j...@dementia.mishnet>,
> <j...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
>> RMS isn't the one that wants to save face. It's the would
>> be profiteers that want to put a kinder gentler face on
>> free software.
>
>I'm not a "would-be profiteer". I've sold one program as shareware, many
>years ago, and I've long since released the source to that one.
>
>I want other people to profit so they'll make cool products that play well
>with their peers, instead of screwed up incompatible systems that don't
>work as well and don't interoperate.
Except it doesn't work that way. Profiteers engineer their
software precisely so it doesn't play well with others.
That's the single biggest problem with commercial software.
They will exclude you from interacting with as much of the
world as they can get away with.
Mooching off of public source doesn't ensure anything in
terms of interoperability. Those with motivation to
exclude are free to be as nasty as they want to be.
The L/GPL at least requires enough disclosure that if you
use it others can verify that you are infact 'playing nice'
or that at least everyone else has the opportunity to 'play
nasty' with you.
In this regard, open specifications are useful in defining
a frame of reference to be used by all. Free code and
derivative works that are free from prying eyes do little
to improve upon the benefit of open specifications other
than getting profiteers something for nothing.
--
bash: the power to toast your registry in style... |||
/ | \
Seeking sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
From: pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/22
Message-ID: <7kmp60$h1t@web.nmti.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492337795
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <slrn7mstss.jhv.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7kmceg$b1r@web.nmti.com> <slrn7mtkl5.kkk.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
Organization: Bailey Network Management
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
In article <slrn7mtkl5.kkk.j...@dementia.mishnet>,
<j...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
>On 21 Jun 1999 21:56:32 GMT, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrn7mstss.jhv.j...@dementia.mishnet>,
>> <j...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
>>> RMS isn't the one that wants to save face. It's the would
>>> be profiteers that want to put a kinder gentler face on
>>> free software.
>>I'm not a "would-be profiteer". I've sold one program as shareware, many
>>years ago, and I've long since released the source to that one.
>>I want other people to profit so they'll make cool products that play well
>>with their peers, instead of screwed up incompatible systems that don't
>>work as well and don't interoperate.
> Except it doesn't work that way. Profiteers engineer their
> software precisely so it doesn't play well with others.
That's pure political bullshit. Yes, some idiot commercial programmers
reinvent the wheel, and some deliberately break protocols. But then so
do idiot free software programmers, including some using the GPL, and
there's plenty of commercial software that does follow open standards
very well.
More to the point, if it wasn't for NetBSD I wouldn't *have* a Network
Appliance in our computer room today. Or if I did I wouldn't be able to
"rsh" to it.
> Mooching off of public source doesn't ensure anything in
> terms of interoperability.
Nothing ensures it, but if you're of a mind to be interoperable and open
it sure makes it easier.
Back off a bit with the politics, anyway. I don't know who's worse when it
comes to namecalling, you or Dyson. You're both demonstrating my point
so damn wonderfully I couldn't have come up with a better pair of bad
examples if I'd planned it that way.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
`-_-' Ar rug tú barróg ar do mhactíre inniu?
'U` "Be vewy vewy quiet...I'm hunting Jedi." -- Darth Fudd
From: j...@dementia.mishnet ()
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/21
Message-ID: <slrn7mtv51.10e.jedi@dementia.mishnet>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492359063
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <slrn7mstss.jhv.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7kmceg$b1r@web.nmti.com> <slrn7mtkl5.kkk.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7kmp60$h1t@web.nmti.com>
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarQ.com
X-Trace: 930020740.260.24 RYQ3FTI5P1FA118EAC qube-02.us-ca.remarq.com
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - The Internet's Discussion Network
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.6 (UNIX)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:05:40 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
On 22 Jun 1999 01:33:52 GMT, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn7mtkl5.kkk.j...@dementia.mishnet>,
> <j...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
>>On 21 Jun 1999 21:56:32 GMT, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com> wrote:
>>>In article <slrn7mstss.jhv.j...@dementia.mishnet>,
>>> <j...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
>>>> RMS isn't the one that wants to save face. It's the would
>>>> be profiteers that want to put a kinder gentler face on
>>>> free software.
>
>>>I'm not a "would-be profiteer". I've sold one program as shareware, many
>>>years ago, and I've long since released the source to that one.
>
>>>I want other people to profit so they'll make cool products that play well
>>>with their peers, instead of screwed up incompatible systems that don't
>>>work as well and don't interoperate.
>
>> Except it doesn't work that way. Profiteers engineer their
>> software precisely so it doesn't play well with others.
>
>That's pure political bullshit. Yes, some idiot commercial programmers
The msword document or the win32 is not political bullshit
but harsh reality as is the msbsd socket api.
[deletia]
When Free software embraces and extends, at least all can
share equally in the insanity on an equal footing.
--
bash: the power to toast your registry in style... |||
/ | \
Seeking sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
From: pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/22
Message-ID: <7kob2r$8r6@web.nmti.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492555623
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <slrn7mtkl5.kkk.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7kmp60$h1t@web.nmti.com> <slrn7mtv51.10e.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
Organization: Bailey Network Management
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
In article <slrn7mtv51.10e.j...@dementia.mishnet>,
<j...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
>On 22 Jun 1999 01:33:52 GMT, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrn7mtkl5.kkk.j...@dementia.mishnet>,
>> <j...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
>>>On 21 Jun 1999 21:56:32 GMT, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <slrn7mstss.jhv.j...@dementia.mishnet>,
>>>> <j...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>> RMS isn't the one that wants to save face. It's the would
>>>>> be profiteers that want to put a kinder gentler face on
>>>>> free software.
>>>>I'm not a "would-be profiteer". I've sold one program as shareware, many
>>>>years ago, and I've long since released the source to that one.
>>>>I want other people to profit so they'll make cool products that play well
>>>>with their peers, instead of screwed up incompatible systems that don't
>>>>work as well and don't interoperate.
>>> Except it doesn't work that way. Profiteers engineer their
>>> software precisely so it doesn't play well with others.
>>That's pure political bullshit. Yes, some idiot commercial programmers
> The msword document or the win32 is not political bullshit
> but harsh reality as is the msbsd socket api.
And the Network Appliance filer is also reality, as are the many other
commercial products that interoperate better because they include BSD code.
The only people who can get away with incompatibilities are people who have
a monopoly. They will be able to play the "embrace and extend" game whether
they can steal source or just re-implement ideas. You brought up Microsoft
and Java. What license would keep them from re-implementing an incompatible
Java-like language, as they are doing? How would the GPL have protected Java
from such an attack any beter than the license they were using? What free
software did they incorporate in MSword or the Win32 API?
No, whether a company incorporates free code or not has little to do with
their behaviour towards open interfaces, and if anything it's more strongly
correlated with support of Open Systems than the monopolist strategy used
by Microsoft.
> When Free software embraces and extends, at least all can
> share equally in the insanity on an equal footing.
Can we? GCC has pretty much trashed TenDRA, and with it all the cool platform
independant intermediate code stuff that TenDRA used. If GCC's extensions had
been developed via an Open Systems process then the work that went into TenDRA
wouldn't have been lost.
Yeh, we can all use GCC. We can all use Windows, too.
Come on, man, junk the neomarxian political terminology and the attitudes
that go with it, so we can move on.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
`-_-' Ar rug tú barróg ar do mhactíre inniu?
'U` "Be vewy vewy quiet...I'm hunting Jedi." -- Darth Fudd
From: j...@dementia.mishnet ()
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/22
Message-ID: <slrn7mviff.o0.jedi@dementia.mishnet>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492601829
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <slrn7mtkl5.kkk.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7kmp60$h1t@web.nmti.com> <slrn7mtv51.10e.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7kob2r$8r6@web.nmti.com>
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarQ.com
X-Trace: 930074227.307.46 RYQ3FTI5P1FA118EAC qube-01.us-ca.remarq.com
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - The Internet's Discussion Network
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.6 (UNIX)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:57:07 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
On 22 Jun 1999 15:45:31 GMT, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn7mtv51.10e.j...@dementia.mishnet>,
> <j...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
>>On 22 Jun 1999 01:33:52 GMT, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com> wrote:
>>>In article <slrn7mtkl5.kkk.j...@dementia.mishnet>,
>>> <j...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>On 21 Jun 1999 21:56:32 GMT, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com> wrote:
>>>>>In article <slrn7mstss.jhv.j...@dementia.mishnet>,
>>>>> <j...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>>> RMS isn't the one that wants to save face. It's the would
>>>>>> be profiteers that want to put a kinder gentler face on
>>>>>> free software.
>
>>>>>I'm not a "would-be profiteer". I've sold one program as shareware, many
>>>>>years ago, and I've long since released the source to that one.
>
>>>>>I want other people to profit so they'll make cool products that play well
>>>>>with their peers, instead of screwed up incompatible systems that don't
>>>>>work as well and don't interoperate.
>
>>>> Except it doesn't work that way. Profiteers engineer their
>>>> software precisely so it doesn't play well with others.
>
>>>That's pure political bullshit. Yes, some idiot commercial programmers
>
>> The msword document or the win32 is not political bullshit
>> but harsh reality as is the msbsd socket api.
>
>And the Network Appliance filer is also reality, as are the many other
>commercial products that interoperate better because they include BSD code.
So? The same sort of things are also true for GPL code
as well. The BSDl is no relative advantage in this
regard.
[deletia]
>> When Free software embraces and extends, at least all can
>> share equally in the insanity on an equal footing.
>
>Can we? GCC has pretty much trashed TenDRA, and with it all the cool platform
>independant intermediate code stuff that TenDRA used. If GCC's extensions had
>been developed via an Open Systems process then the work that went into TenDRA
>wouldn't have been lost.
>
>Yeh, we can all use GCC. We can all use Windows, too.
You're also free to fork it, or to simply scavenge from it.
>
>Come on, man, junk the neomarxian political terminology and the attitudes
>that go with it, so we can move on.
If the intent is not to lock out others, than the restrictions
of the GPL aren't really a problem. Only when motives are
suspect does the GPL become a problem.
Common infastructure does not tend to benefit from being
'owned'. This is taken for granted outside of software.
Weak attempts to associate this practical reality with
communism won't change it.
--
bash: the power to toast your registry in style... |||
/ | \
Seeking sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
From: wclark_x...@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/22
Message-ID: <7koruc$jed$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492619106
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <slrn7mtkl5.kkk.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7kmp60$h1t@web.nmti.com> <slrn7mtv51.10e.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7kob2r$8r6@web.nmti.com> <slrn7mviff.o0.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x33.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 216.101.173.78
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jun 22 20:33:16 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.51 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.2-RELEASE i386)
In article <slrn7mviff.o0.j...@dementia.mishnet>,
j...@dementia.mishnet () wrote:
> On 22 Jun 1999 15:45:31 GMT, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
> wrote:
> > And the Network Appliance filer is also reality, as are the many
> > other commercial products that interoperate better because they
> > include BSD code.
> So? The same sort of things are also true for GPL code
> as well. The BSDl is no relative advantage in this
> regard.
..but it does. The people at Network Appliance were able to make
proprietary customizations to the code that would not have been possible
under the GPL.
Yes, they could have done the same thing under the GPL so long as they
released the changes, but that takes away most of the incentive for
commercial r&d. The point is more companies will start to play nice
under a BSD-style license than under the GPL, which is much more
restrictive.
> If the intent is not to lock out others, than the restrictions
> of the GPL aren't really a problem. Only when motives are
> suspect does the GPL become a problem.
What's suspect about wanting to recoup costs of privately funded R&D?
That is, after all, one of the main motivations behind patent law. Are
you opposed to that as well?
> Common infastructure does not tend to benefit from being
> 'owned'. This is taken for granted outside of software.
> Weak attempts to associate this practical reality with
> communism won't change it.
The differences between the BSDL and GPL don't deal with "common
infrastructure" -- both agree that it is "free" and "unowned". The
differences come into play when somebody tries to *add* to the common
infrastructure. The GPL says you have to give away any of your own
additions for free, if at all, whereas the BSDL allows you to retain a
certain degree of control over your additions while still distributing
the combined work.
--
Bill Clark
Systems Architect
ISP Channel
http://neighborhood.ispchannel.com/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison)
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/22
Message-ID: <jeremyFDr2JM.Kn0@netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492700884
Sender: jer...@netcom11.netcom.com
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <slrn7mtkl5.kkk.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7kmp60$h1t@web.nmti.com> <slrn7mtv51.10e.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7kob2r$8r6@web.nmti.com> <slrn7mviff.o0.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7koruc$jed$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: Netcom
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.os.linux.advocacy
wclark_x...@my-deja.com writes:
>..but it does. The people at Network Appliance were able to make
>proprietary customizations to the code that would not have been possible
>under the GPL.
And why is this a good thing ? My personal dislike is corporate
"free-riders" like NetApp (I also compete commercially with NetApp
of course :-). These people *love* the BSD license and to my knowledge
have never contributed anything back to the core BSD code from
which their original product came (cvs logs to the contrary gratefully
accepted as proof of my error :-). In this I must add that Whistle
communications (now owned by IBM and a previous employer of mine) is a
notable exception.
No doubt had Samba been under the BSD license NetApp would have based
their CIFS server code on that. Of course the Samba Team would have
seen not one line of any change or improvement returned....
Tell me again why this is good ?
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
From: v...@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver)
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/22
Message-ID: <7kp6vk$844$1@calcite.rhyolite.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492867473
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <slrn7mviff.o0.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7koruc$jed$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <jeremyFDr2JM.Kn0@netcom.com>
Organization: Rhyolite Software
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
In article <jeremyFDr2JM....@netcom.com>,
Jeremy Allison <jer...@netcom.com> wrote:
> ...
>No doubt had Samba been under the BSD license NetApp would have based
>their CIFS server code on that. Of course the Samba Team would have
>seen not one line of any change or improvement returned....
>
>Tell me again why this is good ?
No, given your assumption that NetApp would not have given the Samba team
more than it cost the Samba team (e.g. by sending bug reports *and* fixes
to you), tell us again why that would be bad. How would their selfishness
hurt you? Why are you not being even more selfish that the (given
hypothetical) behavior of NetApp? Of course, you have every right to be
as selfish and un-free with your efforts as you want, but ... what's that
saying about sauces and geese?
Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com
From: jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison)
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/23
Message-ID: <jeremyFDsGJu.127@netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492993969
Sender: jer...@netcom11.netcom.com
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <slrn7mviff.o0.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<7koruc$jed$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <jeremyFDr2JM.Kn0@netcom.com>
<7kp6vk$844$1@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Organization: Netcom
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
v...@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:
>No, given your assumption that NetApp would not have given the Samba team
>more than it cost the Samba team (e.g. by sending bug reports *and* fixes
>to you), tell us again why that would be bad. How would their selfishness
>hurt you?
Because at the time, NetApp could have added significantly
more resources than the Samba Team could (this is no longer
true) and could thus have hijacked the development.
Users would have ended up chosing the closed source alternative,
which I firmly believe is bad for interoperability and customers
in the long run.
>Why are you not being even more selfish that the (given
>hypothetical) behavior of NetApp? Of course, you have every right to be
>as selfish and un-free with your efforts as you want, but ... what's that
>saying about sauces and geese?
Because every hard-won piece of knowledge about the monstrosity
that is SMB is available for all to read in the Samba code and
docs. This is why Syntax have been able to add NT domain integration to
their proprietary product, because Luke and Paul Ashton (Samba
Team members) published the spec after working it out. NetApp
also have NT domain integration, probably gained from their
Microsoft 'relationship' - they did not publish their spec.
Yes we *are* less selfish than them, I stand by that !
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
From: v...@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver)
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/23
Message-ID: <7kr54m$r7h$1@calcite.rhyolite.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 493190122
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <jeremyFDr2JM.Kn0@netcom.com>
<7kp6vk$844$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDsGJu.127@netcom.com>
Organization: Rhyolite Software
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
In article <jeremyFDsGJu....@netcom.com>,
Jeremy Allison <jer...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>No, given your assumption that NetApp would not have given the Samba team
>>more than it cost the Samba team (e.g. by sending bug reports *and* fixes
>>to you), tell us again why that would be bad. How would their selfishness
>>hurt you?
>
>Because at the time, NetApp could have added significantly
>more resources than the Samba Team could (this is no longer
>true) and could thus have hijacked the development.
>
>Users would have ended up chosing the closed source alternative,
>which I firmly believe is bad for interoperability and customers
>in the long run.
I do not understand your conclusion. People interested in free stuff
prefer to buy free stuff because the price is right. On the other hand,
people interested in buying an SMB server will still buy an SMB server
instead of a free SMB server. People with budgets, especially those
uninterested in hacking code on their own responsibility, are funny that
way. As Bob Lyon often said, that was why NFS had license fees while
RPC/XDR did not. He tried giving RPC/XDR away, but people wouldn't take
it. So he tried selling NFS for a little more than nothing, and it sold
like hotcakes. (Yes, Sun salespeople and some other managers were not
happy about the NFS fees and didn't see things in exactly same way. Also,
the license fees paid by various outfits varied as the tug of war in Sun
progressed.)
In other words, how could or would NetApp have hijacked anything, provided
the Samba team continued doing what it was doing? For another example,
the last time I looked, neither AT&T/USL/SCO nor BSDI had managed to hijack
UNIX.
>>Why are you not being even more selfish that the (given
>>hypothetical) behavior of NetApp? Of course, you have every right to be
>>as selfish and un-free with your efforts as you want, but ... what's that
>>saying about sauces and geese?
>
>Because every hard-won piece of knowledge about the monstrosity
>that is SMB is available for all to read in the Samba code and
>docs. This is why Syntax have been able to add NT domain integration to
>their proprietary product, because Luke and Paul Ashton (Samba
>Team members) published the spec after working it out. NetApp
>also have NT domain integration, probably gained from their
>Microsoft 'relationship' - they did not publish their spec.
>
>Yes we *are* less selfish than them, I stand by that !
If NetApp learned about SMB from Microsoft, then they are not being
selfish in not talking. They are merely honoring an non-disclosure
agreement whose violation could endanger the whole company.
As others have said, whether you are less selfish depends on who is
judging. End users, marketeers, and salescritters do find you less
selfish, because you help them. However, professional programmers find
you at least as selfish, because they have equal (i.e. no) access to your
code as to the other guys'. If you used the BSD license, then your
position would differ from NetApp's in the eyes of professional
programmers.
Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com
From: jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison)
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/24
Message-ID: <jeremyFDuA9z.110@netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 493417430
Sender: jer...@netcom11.netcom.com
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <jeremyFDr2JM.Kn0@netcom.com>
<7kp6vk$844$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDsGJu.127@netcom.com>
<7kr54m$r7h$1@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Organization: Netcom
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
v...@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:
>In article <jeremyFDsGJu....@netcom.com>,
>Jeremy Allison <jer...@netcom.com> wrote:
>As others have said, whether you are less selfish depends on who is
>judging. End users, marketeers, and salescritters do find you less
>selfish, because you help them. However, professional programmers find
>you at least as selfish, because they have equal (i.e. no) access to your
>code as to the other guys'. If you used the BSD license, then your
>position would differ from NetApp's in the eyes of professional
>programmers.
Not true. There are many professional programmers who
appreciate and help with the Samba code. We have had
contributions from Microsoft and Sun engineers - or do you not
consider them "professional" ?
Of course, if by professional you mean "programmers
who expect something for nothing" then yes I would agree
they would find the Samba Team selfish.
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
From: wclark_x...@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/24
Message-ID: <7ku3ng$g5n$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 493477211
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <jeremyFDr2JM.Kn0@netcom.com>
<7kp6vk$844$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDsGJu.127@netcom.com>
<7kr54m$r7h$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDuA9z.110@netcom.com>
X-Http-Proxy: HTTP/1.1 cache1.ispchannel.com[CE186914]
(Traffic-Server/2.2 [uScMs f p eN:t cSMi p s ]), 1.0 x24.deja.com:80
(Squid/1.1.22) for client 206.24.105.20
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jun 24 20:16:59 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386)
In article <jeremyFDuA9z....@netcom.com>,
jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison) wrote:
> v...@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:
> >As others have said, whether you are less selfish depends on who is
> >judging. End users, marketeers, and salescritters do find you less
> >selfish, because you help them. However, professional programmers
find
> >you at least as selfish, because they have equal (i.e. no) access to
your
> >code as to the other guys'. If you used the BSD license, then your
> >position would differ from NetApp's in the eyes of professional
> >programmers.
> Not true. There are many professional programmers who
> appreciate and help with the Samba code. We have had
> contributions from Microsoft and Sun engineers - or do you not
> consider them "professional" ?
Okay, Vernon should have said "most professional programmers", or even
"many professional programmers". Nonetheless, the [modified] statement
still stands, and makes sense.
> Of course, if by professional you mean "programmers
> who expect something for nothing" then yes I would agree
> they would find the Samba Team selfish.
I believe he probably meant "programmers who expect to be paid for their
efforts". The point is that, under the GPL, programmers must _give_
_away_ code that they have written, if that code builds upon already
GPL'd code. That's a big discouragement for many professional
programmers, and it hurts the free software movement.
--
Bill Clark
Systems Architect
ISP Channel
http://neighborhood.ispchannel.com/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison)
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/24
Message-ID: <jeremyFDupnD.EuI@netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 493532689
Sender: jer...@netcom11.netcom.com
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <jeremyFDr2JM.Kn0@netcom.com>
<7kp6vk$844$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDsGJu.127@netcom.com>
<7kr54m$r7h$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDuA9z.110@netcom.com>
<7ku3ng$g5n$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: Netcom
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
wclark_x...@my-deja.com writes:
>In article <jeremyFDuA9z....@netcom.com>,
>> Of course, if by professional you mean "programmers
>> who expect something for nothing" then yes I would agree
>> they would find the Samba Team selfish.
>I believe he probably meant "programmers who expect to be paid for their
>efforts". The point is that, under the GPL, programmers must _give_
>_away_ code that they have written, if that code builds upon already
>GPL'd code. That's a big discouragement for many professional
>programmers, and it hurts the free software movement.
But that's not true either ! I get paid by SGI to work on
Samba, Andrew gets paid by LinuxCare to work on Samba,
Luke gets paid by ISS to work on Samba (do you see a pattern
here.... :-). The economic activity generated by Samba (a GPL
product) has *increased* our salaries, not decreased them. In
one case it's gotten a Team member a USA visa ! I don't see
how you can say this is discouraging (unless you *really*
don't want to live in the USA :-) :-).
Most of the core coders in the Samba Team a full time professional
programmers who get paid to write code in Samba. None of us is
"giving it away" (although we'd probably work on Samba even
if we weren't getting paid, but don't tell SGI that :-) :-).
Regards,
Jeremy Allson,
Samba Team.
From: wclark_x...@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/24
Message-ID: <7kugeo$ksg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 493552719
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <jeremyFDr2JM.Kn0@netcom.com>
<7kp6vk$844$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDsGJu.127@netcom.com>
<7kr54m$r7h$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDuA9z.110@netcom.com>
<7ku3ng$g5n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <jeremyFDupnD.EuI@netcom.com>
X-Http-Proxy: HTTP/1.1 cache1.ispchannel.com[CE186914] (Traffic-Server/2.2
[uScMs f p eN:t cSMi p s ]), 1.0 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 206.24.105.20
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jun 24 23:54:04 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386)
In article <jeremyFDupnD....@netcom.com>,
jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison) wrote:
> wclark_x...@my-deja.com writes:
> > I believe he probably meant "programmers who expect to be paid for
> > their efforts". The point is that, under the GPL, programmers must
> > _give_ _away_ code that they have written, if that code builds upon
> > already GPL'd code. That's a big discouragement for many
> > professional programmers, and it hurts the free software movement.
> But that's not true either !
Indeed it is. Notice the word "many" in my statement. It is not "all"
or even "most". You can quibble over what constitutes "many", but I
think most people would accept my statement as true [including many GPL
advocates -- though they would disagree with those "many" professional
programmers].
> I get paid by SGI to work on Samba, Andrew gets paid by LinuxCare to
> work on Samba, Luke gets paid by ISS to work on Samba (do you see a
> pattern here.... :-).
Yes, I see a bunch of people who, while very lucky, are not the norm.
Most professional programmers are not paid to work on GPL'd code [or
BSDL'd code, for that matter].
> The economic activity generated by Samba (a GPL
> product) has *increased* our salaries, not decreased them. In
> one case it's gotten a Team member a USA visa ! I don't see
> how you can say this is discouraging (unless you *really*
> don't want to live in the USA :-) :-).
It is also not the norm -- far from it, in fact. Most professional
programmers work on proprietary ["closed"] code, and for them the GPL
pretty much means "hands-off". Some of those may work on side projects,
but many will not, which means that anything created under the GPL will
need to be recreated or purchased elsewhere by many development teams.
> Most of the core coders in the Samba Team a full time professional
> programmers who get paid to write code in Samba. None of us is
> "giving it away" (although we'd probably work on Samba even
> if we weren't getting paid, but don't tell SGI that :-) :-).
Your last statement there really gets to the heart of it -- you
obviously don't mind giving your code away for free. Again, you are not
the norm. Many professional programmers are either unable [due to
economic reasons] or unwilling [perfectly within their rights] to
"donate" their efforts to the cause. Most of them will not be as lucky
as you, in that they will not find an employer willing to pay them while
they produce free code.
I don't really think this is as much an issue centered around software
as it is a philosophical dispute. Let me know if this sounds like a
reasonable characterization of your viewpoint:
GPL advocates feel that the BSDL is too easy for commercial ventures to
"exploit", in that they don't have to play by the same rules as the
people developing the "infrastructure" code. They believe that by
requiring commercial developers to adhere to the guidelines in the GPL,
they are encouraging the spread of those guidelines.
--
Bill Clark
Systems Architect
ISP Channel
http://neighborhood.ispchannel.com/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison)
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/25
Message-ID: <jeremyFDuyyL.G9J@netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 493590454
Sender: jer...@netcom11.netcom.com
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <jeremyFDr2JM.Kn0@netcom.com>
<7kp6vk$844$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDsGJu.127@netcom.com>
<7kr54m$r7h$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDuA9z.110@netcom.com>
<7ku3ng$g5n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <jeremyFDupnD.EuI@netcom.com> <7kugeo$ksg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: Netcom
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
wclark_x...@my-deja.com writes:
>It is also not the norm -- far from it, in fact. Most professional
>programmers work on proprietary ["closed"] code, and for them the GPL
>pretty much means "hands-off". Some of those may work on side projects,
>but many will not, which means that anything created under the GPL will
>need to be recreated or purchased elsewhere by many development teams.
How is paying the price for "purchasing" the software different to
paying the price for using the GPL software ? You consider the price
of the GPL a bit steep. Fine. Don't use it. You would have to make
the same judgement of any proprietary code package you were evaluating.
>Your last statement there really gets to the heart of it -- you
>obviously don't mind giving your code away for free. Again, you are not
>the norm. Many professional programmers are either unable [due to
>economic reasons] or unwilling [perfectly within their rights] to
>"donate" their efforts to the cause. Most of them will not be as lucky
>as you, in that they will not find an employer willing to pay them while
>they produce free code.
Actually, I am paid to do my hobby. I would assert that most programmers
are very proud of the code they produce, and if they were able to keep
control of it (as the GPL allows) then they would be very pleased to
let others look at the code, and maybe re-use it, under terms of their
chosing.
Now John's arguements are that the GPL is not a "free" license, which
I agree with, so I completely disagree with your assertion above that
I "don't mind giving your code away for free". I *don't* give it away
for free, I give it away under the GPL.
Ask John Dyson to explain the difference :-).
>I don't really think this is as much an issue centered around software
>as it is a philosophical dispute. Let me know if this sounds like a
>reasonable characterization of your viewpoint:
>GPL advocates feel that the BSDL is too easy for commercial ventures to
>"exploit", in that they don't have to play by the same rules as the
>people developing the "infrastructure" code. They believe that by
>requiring commercial developers to adhere to the guidelines in the GPL,
>they are encouraging the spread of those guidelines.
Not quite. Some may argue that they wish to "encourage the spread of
those guidelines", I personally wish to see the terms of license I chose
respected by the people licensing the code.
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
From: wclark_x...@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/25
Message-ID: <7kvf9u$v1c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 493684705
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <jeremyFDr2JM.Kn0@netcom.com>
<7kp6vk$844$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDsGJu.127@netcom.com>
<7kr54m$r7h$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDuA9z.110@netcom.com>
<7ku3ng$g5n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <jeremyFDupnD.EuI@netcom.com>
<7kugeo$ksg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <jeremyFDuyyL.G9J@netcom.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 216.101.173.78
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jun 25 08:40:31 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.51 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.2-RELEASE i386)
In article <jeremyFDuyyL....@netcom.com>,
jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison) wrote:
> Actually, I am paid to do my hobby. I would assert that most
> programmers are very proud of the code they produce, and if they were
> able to keep control of it (as the GPL allows) then they would be very
> pleased to let others look at the code, and maybe re-use it, under
> terms of their chosing.
Ahh, but you're assuming that the type of control the GPL allows [not to
have other people make money off your work] is that sought after by most
programmers. I don't think that's the case. I would definitely assert
that most programmers wish to *make* *money* off their own code --
something the GPL does not allow if "their own code" was derived from
other GPL'd code. Being "derived from" does not mean value has not been
added, or effort not put in. Yet those programmers are not allowed to
receive any monetary compensation over and above that allowed by a mere
distributor [except in exceedingly rare cases, such as your own, where
the employer of said programmer is essentially acting as a patron --
something not covered in the GPL].
> Not quite. Some may argue that they wish to "encourage the spread of
> those guidelines", I personally wish to see the terms of license I
> chose respected by the people licensing the code.
That's a cop-out. It's not valid to claim "I use licence X over license
Y because I want people to abide by the license I use", unless there is
a difference in enforcement of each license on its own terms. AFAIK,
all software licenses are enforced equally.
The main point I'm trying to clear up is whether you're opposed to the
BSDL because you feel it allows for too much commercial exploitation, or
if there's another reason.
--
Bill Clark
Systems Architect
ISP Channel
http://neighborhood.ispchannel.com/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison)
Subject: Re: Depoliticising the argument? (Re: BSD, Linux, R.E. Ballard)
Date: 1999/06/25
Message-ID: <7l0bn8$o6h@dfw-ixnews14.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 493826261
References: <376C6D0F.188B@not.org> <jeremyFDr2JM.Kn0@netcom.com>
<7kp6vk$844$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDsGJu.127@netcom.com>
<7kr54m$r7h$1@calcite.rhyolite.com> <jeremyFDuA9z.110@netcom.com>
<7ku3ng$g5n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <jeremyFDupnD.EuI@netcom.com>
<7kugeo$ksg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <jeremyFDuyyL.G9J@netcom.com>
<7kvf9u$v1c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: Netcom
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Jun 25 11:45:28 AM CDT 1999
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
NNTP-Posting-User: jeremy
wclark_x...@my-deja.com writes:
>Ahh, but you're assuming that the type of control the GPL allows [not to
>have other people make money off your work] is that sought after by most
>programmers. I don't think that's the case. I would definitely assert
>that most programmers wish to *make* *money* off their own code --
>something the GPL does not allow if "their own code" was derived from
>other GPL'd code. Being "derived from" does not mean value has not been
>added, or effort not put in. Yet those programmers are not allowed to
>receive any monetary compensation over and above that allowed by a mere
>distributor [except in exceedingly rare cases, such as your own, where
>the employer of said programmer is essentially acting as a patron --
>something not covered in the GPL].
Utterly false. My work on Samba is based on the work by Andrew,
other peoples work in Samba is based upon mine and his.
SGI, Cobalt, Whistle, Realm, RedHat, PHT, Caldera (need I go
on) are *SELLING* Samba as part of their product.
I am making money of this code, don't doubt it.
>That's a cop-out. It's not valid to claim "I use licence X over license
>Y because I want people to abide by the license I use", unless there is
>a difference in enforcement of each license on its own terms. AFAIK,
>all software licenses are enforced equally.
No, I'm using license X as I percive its terms to be fairer.
>The main point I'm trying to clear up is whether you're opposed to the
>BSDL because you feel it allows for too much commercial exploitation, or
>if there's another reason.
The BSDL is a wonderful license for an ideal world, where corporations
see the value of donating their changes back to the common code pool.
Unfortunately, we don't live in that world (or I'm just not that
much of an idealist) which is why I don't use it.
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.