From: battle@cs.utk.edu (David Battle) Newsgroups: alt.os.linux Subject: Linux in the spirit of the GNU General Public Liscense? Summary: NOT! Date: 23 Mar 92 21:15:30 GMT Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department NNTP-Posting-Host: thud.cs.utk.edu I have been overwhelmed with the *positive* responses through email to my offer to provide distribution and support for Linux from those who would like to have a solid distribution of Linux to play with. One person (an obviously-knowledgeable administrator of a largeish network of Unix workstations) even suggested that this might be worth as much at US$150!!! This is about 3 times the *maximum* amount I would consider charging! Thanks to all who responded for your comments. However, I was astounded at the near-hostile responses I received from some of the people working on development of Linux (Linus has NOT commented). I think that the way these developers feel is blasphemy to the GNU GPL. The GPL is clearly set up to allow anyone who wants to to provide distribution and support services *and make a reasonable profit at it* while providing the users with the assurance of the availability of source code and the right to make copies. I'm sure Stallman is happy to have Cygnus Support around to take some of the hassle of distribution and support off his shoulders. I'm sure he's not at all upset that they aren't losing their shirts at it. In fact, I'll bet he would be tickled pink if they got filthy rich; it would just go to show that his philosophy about freely distributable software is economically viable. Not so for the Linux developers I've heard from so far. Unless I'm willing to contribute my time for free (or at least absurdly cheap) they won't be happy with me distributing and providing technical support for Linux, notwithstanding my willingness to contribute back any improvements and/or extensions I make. Given this, I don't think it is a good idea for me to try to provide this service. I would need cooperation (or at least tolerance) from other Linux developers in order to provide this service effectively, and that doesn't seem to be forthcoming. My apologies to those who still have no way of easily and cheaply getting a complete, timely, and solid distribution of Linux with all the sundry source and utilities. My pity on those misguided developers who seem to think that a vow of poverty is needed from any potential development/distribution/support provider. If this attitude becomes prevalent among Linux developers, my prediction is Linux will die. It will quickly be replaced by something that people can make a living developing/distributing/supporting; most likely BSD or GNU. I would like to know how Linus feels about the distribution/support situation. I imagine his feelings would be much more positive. -David L. Battle battle@cs.utk.edu
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds) Newsgroups: alt.os.linux Subject: Re: Linux in the spirit of the GNU General Public Liscense? Date: 24 Mar 92 13:57:49 GMT Organization: University of Helsinki In article < kssijiINN1el@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> battle@cs.utk.edu (David Battle) writes: > >I would like to know how Linus feels about the distribution/support >situation. I imagine his feelings would be much more positive. Ok: I didn't comment before, as I hadn't much to say, and I'll just make my standpoint clear here once and for all, as people seem to be wondering. I feel that if David is serious and willing to take on anything like what he suggested, it certainly can't hurt anyone. If people are willing to pay for David's services, it means they are wanted, and he shouldn't be discouraged. What he proposed is certainly allowed by the copyright, and I think some of the reactions were a bit harsh. Naturally, I'd feel even happier if /I/ got all the money off this enterprise, but on the other hand, I wouldn't want to bother with all the distribution problems etc, so I have only myself to blame (*). If somebody wants to make the same services available as David, I'll be happy, but I don't feel it's a good idea to try to undercut David just because of a I-wrote-parts-of-it-why-should-David-get-the-money? sentiment. I can't say I made any "sacrifice" in writing linux and making it freely distributable: I enjoyed most of it (bug-reports aren't fun, and I /hate/ hardware-dependent bugs, but they are interesting), and I got out as much as I gave (if I hadn't made it public, I'd probably never had implemented some features I now think are indispensable). Also, most persons sent me diffs well aware of the copyright: admittedly it changed between versions 0.11 and 0.12, but I made it clear at the time, and nobody minded it then. I hope David makes it clear to potential customers what linux is and that it is available for free if you want to take the trouble to find it and set it up - his service would be just that: a service. If people find it worth the money, then everything is fine. The amount of money he makes is irrelevant. Linus (*) I also didn't want to make linux "guilt-ware", so I have even tried to avoid asking for voluntary donations. Sometimes I'm too stupid for my own good.
From: spedpr@thor.cf.ac.uk (Paul Richards) Newsgroups: alt.os.linux Subject: Re: Linux in the spirit of the GNU General Public Liscense? Date: 25 Mar 92 18:45:05 GMT Organization: University of Wales College at Cardiff X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway In article < kssijiINN1el@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> battle@cs.utk.edu (David Battle) writes: | |I think that the way these developers feel is blasphemy to the GNU GPL. The |GPL is clearly set up to allow anyone who wants to to provide distribution and |support services *and make a reasonable profit at it* while providing the |users with the assurance of the availability of source code and the right |to make copies. I'm sure Stallman is happy to have Cygnus Support around to |take some of the hassle of distribution and support off his shoulders. I'm |sure he's not at all upset that they aren't losing their shirts at it. In |fact, I'll bet he would be tickled pink if they got filthy rich; it would |just go to show that his philosophy about freely distributable software is |economically viable. | |Not so for the Linux developers I've heard from so far. Unless I'm willing to |contribute my time for free (or at least absurdly cheap) they won't be happy |with me distributing and providing technical support for Linux, notwithstanding |my willingness to contribute back any improvements and/or extensions I make. | I think the point here is that Richard Stallman is not on the poverty line himself and he does get paid for working. He's quite happy to have Cygnus provide the service they do because it's no skin off his nose if other people also get paid for working on free software. However, the sentiments of many people working on Linux are understandably quite different. They get no financial benefits out of Linux and are working on it for fun and because it's a worthwhile project. If all you intend to do is provide a service and make a little money on the side then that's in this spirit. However, when you say things like, "can I make a living out of this" and the such like then their reaction is, not surprisingly, "why should I give my free time so that someone else can get rich". This is basically exploitation of others good intentions. If you are just going to make a little extra money providing a service to those without easy access to Linux, then good luck. If you intend making a living off the backs of others then you deserve what you get. This is certainly not in the spirit of the GPL. | |My pity on those misguided developers who seem to think that a vow of poverty |is needed from any potential development/distribution/support provider. If |this attitude becomes prevalent among Linux developers, my prediction is |Linux will die. It will quickly be replaced by something that people can |make a living developing/distributing/supporting; most likely BSD or GNU. | The above sounds like something from AT&T. If we can't make any money from it then why bother. People have to live but the whole point of the free software is that software development should not be guided by profit but by the need for it. I think the harsh words of those who are against your aims are due to their reluctance to spend all their extra hours working on Linux, while you get rich and they stay poor. Remember, many of those working on linux are doing so because they can't afford to spend money on software i.e. they are NOT rich. Well, those are my thoughts on the matter. -- Paul Richards at Cardiff university, UK. spedpr@uk.ac.cf.thor Internet: spedpr%thor.cf.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk UUCP: spedpr@thor.cf.UUCP or ...!uunet!mcsun!ukc!cf!thor!spedpr +++
From: tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o) Newsgroups: alt.os.linux Subject: Re: Linux in the spirit of the GNU General Public Liscense? Date: 25 Mar 92 20:50:37 GMT Reply-To: tytso@athena.mit.edu Organization: The Internet From: spedpr@thor.cf.ac.uk (Paul Richards) Date: 25 Mar 92 18:45:05 GMT However, the sentiments of many people working on Linux are understandably quite different. They get no financial benefits out of Linux and are working on it for fun and because it's a worthwhile project. If all you intend to do is provide a service and make a little money on the side then that's in this spirit. However, when you say things like, "can I make a living out of this" and the such like then their reaction is, not surprisingly, "why should I give my free time so that someone else can get rich". This is basically exploitation of others good intentions. Hmm... well, my reaction is that it doesn't make any difference if someone tries to make a buck off of Linux, since the GPL states that when something is distributed under the GPL, (1) the GPL must included as part of the distribution, in an obvious place, and (2) either the source must be included or a pointer to a place where the source can be made freely available. So anyone who gets pays $1000 for Linux will be immediately treated to the obvious fact that they can give it away to anybody they want. I find it very doubtful that anyone would be able to "make a living out of this" under these circumstances. Also, if there are really stupid people out there paying $1000/copy for Linux, you can be sure that I and several other people will immediately go out there and offer to sell copies of Linux for $500/copy, and then $100/copy, and then $20/copy..... and pretty soon the free market will take care of driving the price to "natural" levels. I really don't see the big deal and fuss.... the GPL is designed so no one will be able to make outrageous amounts of money over the mere distribution of the software. Support? That's a different matter; but if you are selling support, (like Cygnus), you need to put in a lot more effort yourself --- it's not like you're just mooching off the efforts of other people. - Ted