Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!
pipex!bnr.co.uk!bnrgate!nott!torn!csd.unb.ca!news.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!
cs.dal.ca!iisat!mkseast!dale
From: d...@mkseast.uucp (Dale Gass)
Subject: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Atlantic Canada Branch
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1993 04:04:33 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp>
Lines: 22
(I don't yet have Linux, so bear with me...)
I see that Linux is distributed under the GNU Public License. Does this
include the C libs? If so, I see this as a serious threat to the development
of commercial products for Linux (which is key to it really beating out the
commercial operating systems).
Nobody's gonna release a commercial product if the GPL forces them to release
all their source code; re-implementing all of the C/Posix libraries is too
much work for most companies to consider porting their product to linux...
Just curious,
-dale
(Not a big fan of GPL; I like the MIT X Windows licensing stuff much better;
I think allowing free development of code with commercial companies picking
it up as they wish would lead to a lot more hot products at better prices,
in the software industry.)
--
Dale Gass, Mortice Kern Systems, Atlantic Canada Branch
Business: d...@east.mks.com, Pleasure: d...@mkseast.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!fauern!lrz-muenchen.de!k2
From: k...@bl.physik.tu-muenchen.de (Klaus Steinberger)
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Message-ID: <k2.739610250@woodstock>
Sender: n...@news.lrz-muenchen.de (Mr. News)
Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany)
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 07:17:30 GMT
Lines: 36
d...@mkseast.uucp (Dale Gass) writes:
>Nobody's gonna release a commercial product if the GPL forces them to release
>all their source code; re-implementing all of the C/Posix libraries is too
>much work for most companies to consider porting their product to linux...
The GPL does not enforce releasing your own source code, even if you use the
C-Libraries. Infact there is a modified version of the GPL for libaries.
Here is the relevant part of COPYING.LIB:
For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
you. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source
code. If you link a program with the library, you must provide
complete object files to the recipients so that they can relink them
with the library, after making changes to the library and recompiling
it. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
That means, a software vendor must provide object modules, so that
relinking with modified libraries is possible, but must not release
his source code.
For further information, please refer to COPYING.LIB. There reasons behind
the licence are very clearly explained in this file.
Maybe it should be explicitly stated in Linux that the use of the libraries
falls under the terms of the GPL for libraries.
Sincerely,
Klaus
--
Klaus Steinberger Beschleunigerlabor der TU und LMU Muenchen
Phone: (+49 89)3209 4287 Hochschulgelaende, D-8046 Garching, Germany
FAX: (+49 89)3209 4280 !!! after 1. July new Postal Code 85748
Internet: Klaus.Steinber...@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.DE
From: wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius)
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 07:19:25 GMT
dale@mkseast.uucp (Dale Gass) writes:
>I see that Linux is distributed under the GNU Public License. Does this
>include the C libs?
Some of them, yes. Some is using the LGPL. I think there are a few
other copyrights there as well.
> If so, I see this as a serious threat to the development
>of commercial products for Linux
Oh gee.
>(which is key to it really beating out the commercial operating systems).
Oh, so _that's_ what we're doing.
>(Not a big fan of GPL; I like the MIT X Windows licensing stuff much better;
>I think allowing free development of code with commercial companies picking
>it up as they wish would lead to a lot more hot products at better prices,
>in the software industry.)
I think you might want to take a look at 386BSD/NetBSD, which uses the
BSD copyright.
--
Lars.Wirzenius@helsinki.fi (finger wirzeniu@klaava.helsinki.fi)
MS-DOS, you can't live with it, you can live without it.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!lukka
From: lu...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tuomas J Lukka)
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Message-ID: <1993Jun9.100323.5934@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Organization: University of Helsinki
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp> <k2.739610250@woodstock>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 10:03:23 GMT
Lines: 18
In article <k2.739610250@woodstock> k...@bl.physik.tu-muenchen.de (Klaus Steinberger)
writes:
>d...@mkseast.uucp (Dale Gass) writes:
>
>>Nobody's gonna release a commercial product if the GPL forces them to release
>>all their source code; re-implementing all of the C/Posix libraries is too
>>much work for most companies to consider porting their product to linux...
>
>The GPL does not enforce releasing your own source code, even if you use the
>C-Libraries. Infact there is a modified version of the GPL for libaries.
>
>Here is the relevant part of COPYING.LIB:
....
BUT that doesn't cover regexp and some other major packages in the library.
RMS has stated that if those parts of the library are used, source
must be provided. Too bad.
TJL
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!bnrgate!
bnr.co.uk!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Message-ID: <1993Jun9.131153.25777@swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp> <k2.739610250@woodstock>
<1993Jun9.100323.5934@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 13:11:53 GMT
Lines: 15
In article <1993Jun9.100323.5...@klaava.Helsinki.FI> lu...@klaava.Helsinki.FI
(Tuomas J Lukka) writes:
All you need to do according the GNU people I talked to is provide your
program linked against the shared libraries. The regexp code is in the shared
libraries not your program. The exception is the bison parser which is
generated and compiled _into_ your code.
Note also that because your program contains no GNU code as it is shared
library based and the oddments that are included are not GPL code you can
equally specify that the program needs a library with an interface compliant
with Linux libc 4.3.2 or higher. If people use the gnu C library then so be it
They don't have to.
Alan
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uknet!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!camcus!pc123
From: pc...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Pete Chown)
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
In-Reply-To: dale@mkseast.uucp's message of Tue, 08 Jun 1993 04:04:33 GMT
Message-ID: <PC123.93Jun9233256@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@infodev.cam.ac.uk (USENET news)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 22:33:02 GMT
Lines: 38
Sorry, I can never resist things like this, having being involved in a
big flame war on the BSD newsgroups about this... :-)
In article <1993Jun08.040433.13...@mkseast.uucp> d...@mkseast.uucp
(Dale Gass) writes:
I see that Linux is distributed under the GNU Public License. [...]
If so, I see this as a serious threat to the development of
commercial products for Linux (which is key to it really beating
out the commercial operating systems).
Yes, if we're really lucky we might get Microsoft to implement
Crashdows for Linux. Then we won't have to use this horrible X thingy
any more...
Nobody's gonna release a commercial product if the GPL forces them
to release all their source code;
That's a real shame, isn't it... We're not going to be able to pay for
things that there are perfectly good free alternatives to.
(Not a big fan of GPL; I like the MIT X Windows licensing stuff
much better; I think allowing free development of code with
commercial companies picking it up as they wish would lead to a lot
more hot products at better prices, in the software industry.)
What, you mean the prices would get better because the companies could
free ride on other people's work?
I haven't used a commercial program on my own machine for ages - and I
don't just use my machine for hacking. I have TeX for document
preparation, oleo if I need a spreadsheet (oleo is now stable),
gnuplot for graphical output, bc for when I'm in the mood for number
theory...
--
---------------------------------------------+ "A tight hat can be stretched.
Pete Chown, pc...@phx.cam.ac.uk (Internet) | First damp the head with steam
pc...@uk.ac.cam.phx (Janet :-) -+ from a boiling kettle."
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!
ncrhub2!ncrgw2.ncr.com!psinntp!crynwr!nelson
From: nel...@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <739650137snx@crynwr.com>
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 93 18:22:17 GMT
Organization: Crynwr Software
Lines: 27
In article <1993Jun08.040433.13...@mkseast.uucp> d...@mkseast.uucp writes:
I see that Linux is distributed under the GNU Public License. Does this
include the C libs? If so, I see this as a serious threat to the development
of commercial products for Linux (which is key to it really beating out the
commercial operating systems).
I think you mean proprietary, not commercial. There's nothing
preventing you from making money from a GPL program.
Nobody's gonna release a commercial product if the GPL forces them
to release all their source code; re-implementing all of the
C/Posix libraries is too much work for most companies to consider
porting their product to linux...
Not true. Back in '91, Intel wanted a packet driver. Bad. In one
week's time. So they gave me the source of their IPX driver and said
"go for it, Russ".
(Not a big fan of GPL; I like the MIT X Windows licensing stuff much better;
I think allowing free development of code with commercial companies picking
it up as they wish would lead to a lot more hot products at better prices,
in the software industry.)
Perhaps. You want "more hot products at better prices"? How much
hotter or cheaper than Linux could you want?
-russ <nel...@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
Crynwr Software Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St. 315-268-1925 Voice | LPF member - ask me about
Potsdam, NY 13676 315-268-9201 FAX | the harm software patents do.
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!bogus.sura.net!
news.larc.nasa.gov!gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov!jcburt
From: jcb...@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Date: 10 Jun 1993 12:56:02 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <1v7b12INNk5k@rave.larc.nasa.gov>
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp>
<PC123.93Jun9233256@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov
In article <PC123.93Jun9233...@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk> pc...@cus.cam.ac.uk
(Pete Chown) writes:
>In article <1993Jun08.040433.13...@mkseast.uucp> d...@mkseast.uucp
>(Dale Gass) writes:
>
> I see that Linux is distributed under the GNU Public License. [...]
> If so, I see this as a serious threat to the development of
> commercial products for Linux (which is key to it really beating
> out the commercial operating systems).
>
>Yes, if we're really lucky we might get Microsoft to implement
>Crashdows for Linux. Then we won't have to use this horrible X thingy
>any more...
>
Yep, Microsoft is a great *marketing* company, I just wish they had the
products they claim in their ads...
> Nobody's gonna release a commercial product if the GPL forces them
> to release all their source code;
>
>That's a real shame, isn't it... We're not going to be able to pay for
>things that there are perfectly good free alternatives to.
>
Oh I see, you're looking at it from strictly the consumer/user side...
> (Not a big fan of GPL; I like the MIT X Windows licensing stuff
> much better; I think allowing free development of code with
> commercial companies picking it up as they wish would lead to a lot
> more hot products at better prices, in the software industry.)
>
>What, you mean the prices would get better because the companies could
>free ride on other people's work?
>
>I haven't used a commercial program on my own machine for ages - and I
>don't just use my machine for hacking. I have TeX for document
>preparation, oleo if I need a spreadsheet (oleo is now stable),
>gnuplot for graphical output, bc for when I'm in the mood for number
>theory...
Oh, so you don't make a living writing software. Try looking at it from both
the consumer/user side *and* the producer/developer side, before you go
waving the GPL banner...
People develop software. These people need to eat. These people need to sleep.
These people need to care for themselves when sick. These people need to provide
food/shelter/health care for any dependents. In the U.S. food/shelter/health care
is not provided by the government or some other agency. It *is* obtained with
that great evil money. Where do Joe and Jill Software Developer obtain money?
Corporations will not pay to develop "free" software. Government will not pay
to develop "free" software. Colleges & Universities will only pay to develop
free software to the extent that it is part of a research project.
How about the independent developer? The GPL puts the greatest burden on
the group it *claims* to be helping. Larger Corporations have no problems
with subroutine libraries...if they can't buy it, they develop it themselves.
Either way, they have a subroutine library to develop their own products,
which they have the *freedom* to distribute in whatever form or fashion
they want *and* others will accept. They have the *freedom* of hiding the
secrets of their ideas/software in whatever way they choose. The independent
developer just starting out has little money and few choices. He/she can
generally afford a PC (or Mac), and DOS/Windows comes bundled with it.
Make a living developing software in a UNIX environment as an independent
developer? Forget it, unless you care to plop down big bucks for a Sun
or IBM or HP workstation, or double the price of a PC by purchasing
one of the commercial UNIXs. Ahh...how about LINUX ??? Well, its an
excellent system. Fast, stable, has just about everything you need
to develop UNIX software, except it has the GPL, which restricts how
a software developer can distribute his/her software. Unfortunately
money buys freedom. Also unfortunately, the GPL, which is supposed
to promote "free" software, does just the opposite with the one
group its supposed to help..the small independent developer.
Don't get me wrong, the GPL is a step in the right direction in
that it is a step away from the big corporations hording & stealing
all the software. But I think it needs to be re-thought in terms of
just who it is helping/protecting, and who is deriving the most
benefit from it...
John
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!olivea!
grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!burley
From: bur...@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Date: 10 Jun 93 11:37:44
Organization: Free Software Foundation 545 Tech Square Cambridge, MA 02139
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <BURLEY.93Jun10113744@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp>
<PC123.93Jun9233256@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk>
<1v7b12INNk5k@rave.larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov's message of 10 Jun 1993 12:56:02 GMT
Followups-To: gnu.misc.discuss
In article <1v7b12INN...@rave.larc.nasa.gov> jcb...@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
People develop software. These people need to eat. These people need to
sleep. These people need to care for themselves when sick. These people
need to provide food/shelter/health care for any dependents. In the U.S.
food/shelter/health care is not provided by the government or some other
agency. It *is* obtained with that great evil money. Where do Joe and Jill
Software Developer obtain money?
From services rendered, like writing software. Or do you think their
only choice is to take other people's software, package it as there
own, sell it, and restrict the recipients so they can't make copies and
access source code as freely as Joe and Jill did?
Corporations will not pay to develop "free" software.
False. How do you think a substantial portion of GNU C was developed?
Government will not pay to develop "free" software.
False. Would you care to hazard a guess as to what percentage of PD
software currently available was funded by the US government?
Colleges & Universities will only pay to develop
free software to the extent that it is part of a research project.
False. Or do you consider X to be a "research project" only?
You ought to actually try learning something before posting this blather
on USENET and wasting resources, especially those that many other people
pay for.
How about the independent developer? The GPL puts the greatest burden on
the group it *claims* to be helping. Larger Corporations have no problems
with subroutine libraries...if they can't buy it, they develop it
themselves.
Without the GPL, a lot of the software that _does_ help the independent
developer (like myself) wouldn't exist. As far as "Larger Corporations"
developing subroutine libraries themselves, I have found that in fact
that tends to be exactly false as well -- the larger the corporation,
the less likely it is to reinvent the wheel.
An independent developer who can't or won't benefit from the GPL (which
includes all GPL-protected software) has his/her own problems, like
perhaps being incompetent (e.g. unable to read code to learn how
things work, so as to be able to write quality, compatible from
scratch where necessary to get around GPL restrictions). The GPL is
not the problem -- the developer is.
--
James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson bur...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF) l...@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!
news.crd.ge.com!ariel!davidsen
From: david...@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Message-ID: <C8F20o.41w@crdnns.crd.ge.com>
Sender: use...@crdnns.crd.ge.com (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: david...@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp>
<PC123.93Jun9233256@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk> <BURLEY.93Jun10113744@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 17:31:36 GMT
Lines: 46
In article <BURLEY.93Jun10113...@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu>,
bur...@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes:
| From services rendered, like writing software. Or do you think their
| only choice is to take other people's software, package it as there
| own, sell it, and restrict the recipients so they can't make copies and
| access source code as freely as Joe and Jill did?
Sorry, I feel that Joe and Jill have the right to sell or give away
their work, with or without source, and that they have the right to
control their own software. All this stuff about restricting
distribution of other software is a irrelevant.
|
| Government will not pay to develop "free" software.
|
| False. Would you care to hazard a guess as to what percentage of PD
| software currently available was funded by the US government?
No, but if you want to claim it was a high percentage please post some
source for your numbers.
|
| Colleges & Universities will only pay to develop
| free software to the extent that it is part of a research project.
|
| False. Or do you consider X to be a "research project" only?
First, the hardware was donated by commercial hardware vendors, second
parts of X were originally written by employees of those vendors, third
it can be argued that MIT was "paid" in hardware for some of it's
effort. And now a lot of the development is being done elsewhere, with
central coordination. X was not an altruistic gesture by MIT alone, it
was a project of mutual benefit to the vendors who get the end result
cheaper than writing it themselves, and got a standard, and by MIT who
got the benefit of prestige, publicity, and papers published.
| James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson bur...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
| Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF) l...@uunet.uu.net
Let's say that people who's affiliation is academic or political
(depending on the address used) may have a different outlook than those
who are in the .com domain.
--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; 518-387-6489
TMR Associates, +1 518-370-5654
Custom programming, system configuration, data acquisition,
industrial monitoring and "smart house" environment control.
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!wupost!news.miami.edu!
usenet.ufl.edu!prl.ufl.edu!kem
From: k...@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Date: 10 Jun 1993 19:15:19 GMT
Organization: University of Florida Parallel Reasearch Lab.
Lines: 52
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1v8187INNt41@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp> <739650137snx@crynwr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: zoyd.prl.ufl.edu
Here we go again. For the benefit of new readers...
In article <739650137...@crynwr.com>, nel...@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:
|> In article <1993Jun08.040433.13...@mkseast.uucp> d...@mkseast.uucp writes:
|>
|> I see that Linux is distributed under the GNU Public License. Does this
|> include the C libs? If so, I see this as a serious threat to the development
|> of commercial products for Linux (which is key to it really beating out the
|> commercial operating systems).
|>
|> I think you mean proprietary, not commercial. There's nothing
|> preventing you from making money from a GPL program.
Do you agree that it makes it a lot harder? In this case, though, having Linux
itself be GPL's should be too big of a problem for proprietary *applications*
that run on top of Linux. However, for any significant amount of commercial software
to be ported to Linux, there /must/ be a stable and standard Linux version that
everyone uses. This has not yet been achieved. Perhaps when Linus releases a
1.0 version, all the Linux packages can guarentee binary compatibility for
application software. Part of the reason for the rapid pace of Linux development
is there has little concern for binary compatibility that is required for
true commercial OS's.
|>
|> Nobody's gonna release a commercial product if the GPL forces them
|> to release all their source code; re-implementing all of the
|> C/Posix libraries is too much work for most companies to consider
|> porting their product to linux...
|>
|> Not true. Back in '91, Intel wanted a packet driver. Bad. In one
|> week's time. So they gave me the source of their IPX driver and said
|> "go for it, Russ".
Well, ok, "Nobody" was too strong, how about "Very few" will release their sources.
|>
|> (Not a big fan of GPL; I like the MIT X Windows licensing stuff much better;
|> I think allowing free development of code with commercial companies picking
|> it up as they wish would lead to a lot more hot products at better prices,
|> in the software industry.)
|>
|> Perhaps. You want "more hot products at better prices"? How much
|> hotter or cheaper than Linux could you want?
|> -russ <nel...@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
Certainly Linux is hot and a great price. But the vast majority of software
developers don't give away their sources for free, and thus they cannot build upon,
nor incorporate GPL's software to create better products. This really gives
the big software companies a big advantage over more innovative smaller software
companies, since the smaller guys don't have as much man-power to re-implement
all the free-but-not-really-free GPL'd software out there.
-Kelly Murray
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!klaava!not-for-mail
From: wirze...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Date: 11 Jun 1993 11:29:14 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 29
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1v9foq$pd9@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp> <739650137snx@crynwr.com>
<1v8187INNt41@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kruuna.helsinki.fi
k...@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) writes:
>However, for any significant amount of commercial software to be
>ported to Linux, there /must/ be a stable and standard Linux version
>that everyone uses. This has not yet been achieved.
Nor is it likely to be, unless all development stops at 1.0.
>Perhaps when Linus releases a 1.0 version, all the Linux packages can
>guarentee binary compatibility for application software. Part of the
>reason for the rapid pace of Linux development is there has little
>concern for binary compatibility that is required for true commercial
>OS's.
Quite. And since Linux doesn't, as far as I can see, even try to be a
true commercial OS, there is little need to try to guarantee binary
compatibility.
>Certainly Linux is hot and a great price. But the vast majority of
>software developers don't give away their sources for free, and thus
>they cannot build upon, nor incorporate GPL's software to create
>better products.
Should they be able to? I don't think so, since that is exactly the
reason why the GPL was created.
--
Lars.Wirzen...@helsinki.fi (finger wirze...@klaava.helsinki.fi)
MS-DOS, you can't live with it, you can live without it.
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!
usenet.ufl.edu!prl.ufl.edu!kem
From: k...@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Date: 11 Jun 1993 20:03:36 GMT
Organization: University of Florida Parallel Reasearch Lab.
Lines: 48
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1vaoeoINNg17@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp> <739650137snx@crynwr.com>
<1v8187INNt41@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> <1v9foq$pd9@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
NNTP-Posting-Host: zoyd.prl.ufl.edu
In article <1v9foq$...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>, wirze...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI
(Lars Wirzenius) writes:
|> k...@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) writes:
|>
|> >However, for any significant amount of commercial software to be
|> >ported to Linux, there /must/ be a stable and standard Linux version
|> >that everyone uses. This has not yet been achieved.
|>
|> Nor is it likely to be, unless all development stops at 1.0.
|>
|> >Perhaps when Linus releases a 1.0 version, all the Linux packages can
|> >guarentee binary compatibility for application software. Part of the
|> >reason for the rapid pace of Linux development is there has little
|> >concern for binary compatibility that is required for true commercial
|> >OS's.
|>
|> Quite. And since Linux doesn't, as far as I can see, even try to be a
|> true commercial OS, there is little need to try to guarantee binary
|> compatibility.
|>
I've always been under the impression that a primary goal of Linux was to
provide a replacement for DOS, NT, and SunOS, etc. I would guess most users
want it to be. If that is not the goal of Linux, would it be so terrible to
have a company create a proprietary version that attempts to be a stable,
standard, supported version to encourage ports of commercial software,
with a real marketing budget to properly go up against the big boys.
SLS/NT or something?
I guess the answer is yes, it would be terrible, since as many have expressed
in this forum, someone would be "ripping off" or not providing monetary reward,
for those who did the existing development work. Perhaps, but I think the truth is
people are afraid that it could actually become popular and successful,
even more so than the original free version, and this would not seem "fair".
So the idea is to only allow the original, free version to be successful,
or nothing at all. Kind of a benign monopoly. Sure, I respect the rights
of those who use the GPL, and some very good software has been created.
I am just sad that they've limited their potential impact.
Many feel Apple unfairly used Xerox ideas. Sure, it seems unfair,
but nothing prevented Xerox from creating a Mac. Apple took the initiate,
took a chance, went out on a limb, invested its resources.
(Yes, their legal s*** is horrible, but this can be fixed without resorted to GPL,
ask me how)
Maybe if people could see more of the failures of software companies,
they wouldn't be so hostile to the successes.
-Kelly Murray
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!klaava!not-for-mail
From: wirze...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Date: 12 Jun 1993 01:04:10 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 106
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1vavgq$ngg@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp>
<1v8187INNt41@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> <1v9foq$pd9@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
<1vaoeoINNg17@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kruuna.helsinki.fi
k...@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) writes:
> I've always been under the impression that a primary goal of Linux was to
> provide a replacement for DOS, NT, and SunOS, etc.
I think you're very, very wrong. Nothing that Linus has said in
public seems to support this (not even the 300+ line interview I made
with him, for Linux News #3 (I think that's the issue), back in last
fall; that, if any, would have been an appropriate place to state such
a goal).
At most he might have had a temporary secondary goal of providing a
replacement for Minix. I think he has succeeded in that.
From what I know of Linus, and based on my recollections of
discussions way back when, he never really set out to create a "real"
operating system. It more or less just happened. First he wanted to
learn 386 assembler (I seem to remember that the first thing he did
was a strlen :-), then he wanted to try out the protected mode
instructions, and wrote a small scheduler which ran two tasks, each
printing a different character (so you'd get AAABBABBBBAAAABB on the
screen, and could actually see when the task switch took place).
Some time after that, he had a keyboard driver, a serial driver, a
screen driver with some vt100 emulation (he used his QL to learn all
the funny codes: he had a font that had displayed control characters
as their hexadecimal codes, so it was easy to see exactly what data
came from the serial line). This was enough to use his computer as a
terminal emulation.
Then he added a floppy driver, a hard disk driver, a filesystem. Then
he wanted to be able to compile gcc under the rudiments of an
operating system he had. Some time after that was possible, he
"discussed" things with ast, and became much more determined to beat
Minix. After he had done that, there was X, then lotsa new features,
then networking, then ...
Now we have a 0.99pl10.
But I don't think he actually sat down and said "I want to write an
operating system that replaces all other operating systems".
Yo, Linus: care to confirm or correct me?
> I would guess most users want it to be.
If so, they are free to attempt it.
> If that is not the goal of Linux, would it be so terrible to have a
> company create a proprietary version that attempts to be a stable,
> standard, supported version to encourage ports of commercial
> software, with a real marketing budget to properly go up against the
> big boys.
There is absolutely, postively, no problem whatsoever in a company
creating their own version of Linux, or their own distribution.
If they make it proprietary, then they are doing everything wrong.
> Perhaps, but I think the truth is people are afraid that it could
> actually become popular and successful, even more so than the
> original free version, and this would not seem "fair". So the idea
> is to only allow the original, free version to be successful, or
> nothing at all.
No. Wrong. One of the most important points of the GPL is to
encourage people to modify programs, whether it is to fix bugs, to
make new features, or to write something entirely different but use
the existing code.
The other important point of the GPL is that everyone should be free
to do the same to every program. That's why it is not allowable to
make a program based on a GPL'd program proprietary.
> Maybe if people could see more of the failures of software
> companies, they wouldn't be so hostile to the successes.
Maybe if people would see more free software made proprietary, they
wouldn't be so hostile toward the GPL.
I honestly can't understand why there are so many people who seem to
think that it is ok for people to forbid the sharing and modifying of
programs, while they think it is ok for them to take other people's
programs, modify them, and sell them for profig (while forbidding the
sharing and modifying the modified programs).
We have this flame war every now and then. Some people (they always
look like newcomers to me, but I might be wrong) start complaining
that they can't take Linux and make it into a commercial product.
Other people explain to them that they can do exactly that, as long as
their versions is under the GPL too. Then they get hot and bothered
and start screaming about evil hackers who are robbing honest
businessmen their chance to become as successful as Bill Gates. I
never really understood the logic of their argument. Perhaps I'm
stupid, or perhaps I just can't understand how their greedy little
minds work.
Oh well, who cares. At least we can have a great time while we
discuss it civilly, throwing "Mr. Flames" at each other.
(BTW, are the businessmen related to the people who go around telling
us that we must do this or that or otherwise Linux will never become
anything? Siblings? Cousins? Just friends?)
--
Lars.Wirzen...@helsinki.fi (finger wirze...@klaava.helsinki.fi)
MS-DOS, you can't live with it, you can live without it.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sun4nl!tedux!oea!dan
From: d...@oea.hobby.nl (Dan Naas)
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Organization: Hobbynet
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 18:07:04 GMT
Message-ID: <C8GyBu.AB@oea.hobby.nl>
References: <C8F20o.41w@crdnns.crd.ge.com>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Lines: 23
william E Davidsen (david...@ariel.crd.GE.COM) wrote:
: Sorry, I feel that Joe and Jill have the right to sell or give away
: their work, with or without source, and that they have the right to
: control their own software. All this stuff about restricting
: distribution of other software is a irrelevant.
Of course they do. Wouldn't have it any other way. That's why the
people who use the GNU copyleft have every right to do so. Those who don't
like it should quit moaning and find an alternative. For example, why don't
they write public doamin tools to compete with GNU.
: Let's say that people who's affiliation is academic or political
: (depending on the address used) may have a different outlook than those
: who are in the .com domain.
Those in .com domains have many commercial tools available for them
to choose from. Why should they be looking at GNU? Except with greed in their
heart. Read the license. If you find that its terms are not agreeable to you,
look for an alternative. BUT STOP MOANING.
--
|< Dan Naas d...@oea.hobby.nl >|
+-------------------------------+
From: wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius)
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Date: 12 Jun 1993 17:30:33 +0300
dale@mkseast.uucp (Dale Gass) writes:
> I would really love to see Linux and/or BSD/386 help promote Unix as the
> operating system of choice.
Agreed.
> In order for it to become anything other than a toy, you're gonna
> need commercial applications.
Probably true, if you defined "toy" as "not a commercial success".
Linux is not toy even now, for the people who use it seriously.
> The inherent performance, stability, networking, flexibility, cost,
> etc., of Linux would make commercial operating systems second
> choices.
Technical excellence has nothing to do with it. Marketing or pure
luck is what decides.
> While it might not have been the original intent, I certainly don't see
> that as a harmful side effect; I certainly don't see it as threatening.
It might be threatening, actually, since if Linux were to become the
heir of MS-DOS, it would make it much, much more difficult to develop
it further: a few dozen million users tend to dislike if they have to
upgrade their whole system every few weeks.
> It sounds like you want to keep Linux for yourself (i.e. the Unix
> hacker) rather than for the masses.
No. I want to keep Linux free.
> So technically, there's no problem; let's just hope there's not a prevailing
> anti-commercial-products attitude among Linux users.
I don't have anything against people doing commercial versions of
Linux (as long as they stay within the bounds of the GPL, of course).
Trying to make it the primary goal of everyone concerned with Linux is
not that exiting, though.
I think that some of the people who wish to make Linux a commercial
success should start working on that. The matter of copyrights
certainly has been discussed to death. The copyrights are not the
problem. The problem is being able to afford ads in all major PC
magazines, get favorable reviews in the same magazines, provide
guaranteed support, and create a rock-solid, easy-to-install product,
and the zillion exciting applications for it, roughly in that order.
--
Lars.Wirzenius@helsinki.fi (finger wirzeniu@klaava.helsinki.fi)
MS-DOS, you can't live with it, you can live without it.
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!
usenet.ufl.edu!prl.ufl.edu!kem
From: k...@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Date: 14 Jun 1993 19:19:23 GMT
Organization: University of Florida Parallel Reasearch Lab.
Lines: 89
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1viivrINN950@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp>
<1v8187INNt41@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> <1v9foq$pd9@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
<1vaoeoINNg17@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> <1vavgq$ngg@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
NNTP-Posting-Host: zoyd.prl.ufl.edu
In article <1vavgq$...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>, you write:
|> k...@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) writes:
|> > I've always been under the impression that a primary goal of Linux was to
|> > provide a replacement for DOS, NT, and SunOS, etc.
|>
|> I think you're very, very wrong. Nothing that Linus has said in
|> public seems to support this (not even the 300+ line interview I made
|> with him, for Linux News #3 (I think that's the issue), back in last
|> fall; that, if any, would have been an appropriate place to state such
|> a goal).
|>
|> > I would guess most users want it to be.
|>
|> If so, they are free to attempt it.
I understand this wasn't an original goal of Linus. From reading comp.os.linux,
or any of the Linux announcements, I would say Linux has been clearly promoted
as a replacement for DOS. Witness your own .sig. Tons of c.o.l mail discusses
the "killer apps", or other software needed to make Linux a mainstream OS
for ordinary people, and not just hackers or students.
|> We have this flame war every now and then. Some people (they always
|> look like newcomers to me, but I might be wrong) start complaining
|> that they can't take Linux and make it into a commercial product.
|> Other people explain to them that they can do exactly that, as long as
|> their versions is under the GPL too. Then they get hot and bothered
|> and start screaming about evil hackers who are robbing honest
|> businessmen their chance to become as successful as Bill Gates. I
|> never really understood the logic of their argument. Perhaps I'm
|> stupid, or perhaps I just can't understand how their greedy little
|> minds work.
What I get hot and bothered about is the claim put forward by GPL proponents
that it provides a better way for a better world, with the corresponding hostility
towards business and profits, and a lack of understanding of the free market.
There are other chances to create profitable businesses without using free software.
Investment will just go elsewhere, where there is less risk and more chance for
success. That is the sense of the GPL robbing us all, since less resources get
applied to GPL'd work that could be used to create better products.
Of course, free-market competition is not always the best way, either, but as a
general philosophy I think it holds up pretty well.
|> > If that is not the goal of Linux, would it be so terrible to have a
|> > company create a proprietary version that attempts to be a stable,
|> > standard, supported version to encourage ports of commercial
|> > software, with a real marketing budget to properly go up against the
|> > big boys.
|>
|> There is absolutely, postively, no problem whatsoever in a company
|> creating their own version of Linux, or their own distribution.
|> ...
|> I honestly can't understand why there are so many people who seem to
|> think that it is ok for people to forbid the sharing and modifying of
|> programs, while they think it is ok for them to take other people's
|> programs, modify them, and sell them for profig (while forbidding the
|> sharing and modifying the modified programs).
|>
In my view, it would only be OK as long as everyone had the same opportunity.
Its really quite simple. The modifications made create additional value that
allows the profits. Because everyone else also starts with the same thing,
you won't make any profits if the modifications don't provide enough value
to justify the price compared to the competition (which, in this case, is free).
|>
|> Oh well, who cares. At least we can have a great time while we
|> discuss it civilly, throwing "Mr. Flames" at each other.
|>
Ok, I admit I went overboard on Craig Burley. Let me state for the record
that I had never seen anyone previously refer to Craig Burley as "Mr. Flame",
and I do not wish my comment to convey any information regarding the programming
talents of Mr. Burley.
|> (BTW, are the businessmen related to the people who go around telling
|> us that we must do this or that or otherwise Linux will never become
|> anything? Siblings? Cousins? Just friends?)
|>
I also believe that commercial applications will be necessary
for Linux to become a serious competitor to SunOS or NT, so in this case,
I hold both opinions. I never said Linux would "never become anything" without it.
It is already quite something, and becoming more so. It just won't be in
the same league with SunOS or SCO without the same quality (and quantity)
of applications. Again, that will require a stable, standard Linux version.
It doesn't have to be a proprietary one.
-Kelly Murray
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!rrz.uni-koeln.de!news.dfn.de!darwin.sura.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!
nstn.ns.ca!cs.dal.ca!iisat!mkseast!dale
From: d...@mkseast.uucp (Dale Gass)
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Atlantic Canada Branch
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 03:51:45 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Jun15.035145.16874@mkseast.uucp>
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp>
<1993Jun9.071925.23081@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <1993Jun11.125956.8984@mkseast.uucp>
<1vcpa9$csp@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Lines: 117
wirze...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes:
>
>d...@mkseast.uucp (Dale Gass) writes:
>> I would really love to see Linux and/or BSD/386 help promote Unix as the
>> operating system of choice.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> In order for it to become anything other than a toy, you're gonna
>> need commercial applications.
>
>Probably true, if you defined "toy" as "not a commercial success".
>Linux is not toy even now, for the people who use it seriously.
That's not my definition. I'd define "toy" as something that is only
played with, and not suitable for meeting the operating system needs of
a wide audience.
Yes, I know there are people who can survive with Linux and GCC and TeX and
GhostScript, etc., etc.. However, most people need a bigger selection of
friendlier packages to choose from. Myself (other than the fact that I
develop on DOS, OS/2 and NT for a living :-) I would probably get along
just fine with Linux as my sole operating system, if I had the equivalent
of WinFax and FrameMaker avaialable for it. Others might get along fine
if Lotus 1.2.3 and WP were available for it. And so on. There's lotsa
great PD stuff available for Linux, but not the stuff that'll make Linux
the "operating system of choice" for people other than the Unix folk.
The Unix folk might think that is just fine, and prefer to keep Linux for
themselves. When I see the potential of Linux against the new tangle of
386 proprietary OS's each with their own silly limitations, it's just
sad that Linux couldn't be a contender in that market. Not to be a
commercial success, but to meet user's (and developer's) operating system
needs at a wonderful price...
>> The inherent performance, stability, networking, flexibility, cost,
>> etc., of Linux would make commercial operating systems second
>> choices.
>
>Technical excellence has nothing to do with it. Marketing or pure
>luck is what decides.
Which is why it might have been nice to see Linux be put truly in the
public domain. Some marketing genius might have picked it up and brought
it to a much larger audience. Even if the much dreaded MicroSoft were
to have done this (not likely, eh?), it wouldn't have been a *threat* to
Linux. If they butchered it, there's still be the free version of Linux,
which people would find out about quickly enough and use instead.
I guess even with the GPL there's still people packaging up Linux onto
CD's, etc.. You'll never see the intensive marketing force, though,
such as the strong effort MicroSoft made to get application developers
developing for NT.
>> While it might not have been the original intent, I certainly don't see
>> that as a harmful side effect; I certainly don't see it as threatening.
>
>It might be threatening, actually, since if Linux were to become the
>heir of MS-DOS, it would make it much, much more difficult to develop
>it further: a few dozen million users tend to dislike if they have to
>upgrade their whole system every few weeks.
Not quite sure I understand what you're getting at. Sure, Linux is changing
quite rapidly now. I would suspect that at least the program interfaces
(system calls, shared libs interfaces, etc.) would be settling down pretty
quickly in the next year or so. As long as those are reasonably stable,
applications should run. No need to upgrade the system every few weeks...
>> It sounds like you want to keep Linux for yourself (i.e. the Unix
>> hacker) rather than for the masses.
>
>No. I want to keep Linux free.
And I still don't see the relationship between having commercial products
available for linux, and Linux losing it's freedom. I really don't think
that companies who develop commercial applications would simply give
away their code instead of selling it. If they didn't see a demand of the
product (or saw resent of commercial products among the users :-), the
alternative would be to not develop the product at all, not to develop
it anyway and give it away. I think the options for such developers
are a given commercial product, or nothing. It'd be sad to see Linux
users opt for the latter.
>> So technically, there's no problem; let's just hope there's not a prevailing
>> anti-commercial-products attitude among Linux users.
>
>I don't have anything against people doing commercial versions of
>Linux (as long as they stay within the bounds of the GPL, of course).
>Trying to make it the primary goal of everyone concerned with Linux is
>not that exiting, though.
Agreed. I don't think there's any danger of that, though. The very fact
that the poor student, hobbyist, hacker, whatever, can get Linux for free (or
cheaply on CD-ROM) will always tend to attract people who write code for
the hell of it.
>I think that some of the people who wish to make Linux a commercial
>success should start working on that. The matter of copyrights
>certainly has been discussed to death. The copyrights are not the
>problem. The problem is being able to afford ads in all major PC
>magazines, get favorable reviews in the same magazines, provide
>guaranteed support, and create a rock-solid, easy-to-install product,
>and the zillion exciting applications for it, roughly in that order.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in any case. As soon as Jana
Publishing gets their next batch of CD's out the door (and as soon as I get
some spare time) I'll be switching from Xenix to Linux.
(I almost half-suspect Linux and BSD-386 to get a large part of their
mainstream usage in the form of turnkey system developers who use it
(instead of, say, the pricey Xenix or Qnix) as a base for dedicated
multi-user applications.)
-dale
--
Dale Gass, Mortice Kern Systems, Atlantic Canada Branch
Business: d...@east.mks.com, Pleasure: d...@mkseast.uucp
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!
uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!klaava!not-for-mail
From: wirze...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Date: 15 Jun 1993 21:54:13 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <1vl5sl$je8@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp>
<1993Jun11.125956.8984@mkseast.uucp> <1vcpa9$csp@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
<1993Jun15.035145.16874@mkseast.uucp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kruuna.helsinki.fi
d...@mkseast.uucp (Dale Gass) writes:
> That's not my definition. I'd define "toy" as something that is only
> played with, and not suitable for meeting the operating system needs of
> a wide audience.
IMHO, still a curious definition, when the "toy" is being used for
real work. Enough of that, though.
> I guess even with the GPL there's still people packaging up Linux onto
> CD's, etc.. You'll never see the intensive marketing force, though,
> such as the strong effort MicroSoft made to get application developers
> developing for NT.
I don't think GPL vs PD has anything to do with not having intensive
marketing for Linux. Intensive marketing takes money, a lot of money,
for a long time: anyone want to guess the budget of MS's marketing
department? Unless you can more or less match that, even for a narrow
segment of the market, you haven't got much chance. Even if you can,
it isn't a guaranteed success (witness how well OS/2 is doing compared
to Windows: IBM isn't exactly known for not having any money).
> And I still don't see the relationship between having commercial products
> available for linux, and Linux losing it's freedom.
Again, having commercial products available for Linux is not what I am
against. Making Linux proprietary, even if there were a free version
as well, is a threat to the freeness of Linux, regardless of counter
examples (386bsd vs BSDI comes to mind). A proprietary version would
mean that any changes made to it are not available to those using the
free version, while the opposite is not true, which is very similar to
the situation that RMS was in with the Lisp machine companies, and one
of the reasons (if not the reason) why he created the GPL.
> I really don't think that companies who develop commercial
> applications would simply give away their code instead of selling
> it.
Neither do I. If someone wants to write/port and sell a commercial
application for Linux, they can go right ahead. If the library's
copyrights are a problem, then those parts of the library that are
still under the GPL can be worked around or replaced with non-GPL
versions (by hackers or the commercial vendor). Asking that Linux be
made proprietary or non-GPL is not relevant.
--
Lars.Wirzen...@helsinki.fi (finger wirze...@klaava.helsinki.fi)
MS-DOS, you can't live with it, you can live without it.
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!xlink.net!
math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!news.funet.fi!
hydra!klaava!klaava!not-for-mail
From: wirze...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 15 Jun 1993 22:10:55 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 62
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1vl6rv$k2i@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
References: <1993Jun08.040433.13166@mkseast.uucp>
<1vaoeoINNg17@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> <1vavgq$ngg@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
<1viivrINN950@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kruuna.helsinki.fi
[ Followups redirected, this is turning into a generic GPL flame, so
it should go to gnu.misc.discuss. It probably should have been
there anyway. Any FSF types should be better able to provide
feedback in that group, as well. ]
k...@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) writes:
> I understand this wasn't an original goal of Linus. From reading
> comp.os.linux, or any of the Linux announcements, I would say Linux
> has been clearly promoted as a replacement for DOS. Witness your
> own .sig.
Actually, I don't think my .sig mentions Linux. It is definitely not
meant to promote Linux, only to bash on DOS. Even if not in my .sig,
that quote does express my feelings towards DOS for a long time.
(I do hope that even if I am active in the Linux community, that I can
say things without everyone thinking they something to do with Linux.)
> Tons of c.o.l mail discusses the "killer apps", or other software
> needed to make Linux a mainstream OS for ordinary people, and not
> just hackers or students.
Agreed. Few of those who seem to be working on "killer apps" seem to
regard Linux being under the GPL as being significant.
> What I get hot and bothered about is the claim put forward by GPL
> proponents that it provides a better way for a better world, with
> the corresponding hostility towards business and profits, and a lack
> of understanding of the free market. There are other chances to
> create profitable businesses without using free software.
> Investment will just go elsewhere, where there is less risk and more
> chance for success. That is the sense of the GPL robbing us all,
> since less resources get applied to GPL'd work that could be used to
> create better products.
Quite. Everyone is being hurt by the fact that GPL'd software can be
copied freely and used freely, and cannot be made so that it can't be
copied and used freely. Everyone would be much better off if every
businessman could just take whatever free software they like and make
some changes and refuse other people to use or copy it unless they pay
the businessman some money.
There _is_ money to be made from GPL'd software. Distribution,
support, enhancement, teaching, and providing other forms of service
in connection with the software are the traditional examples. For
proprietary software, these services are provided mainly by those who
provide the software, and most of them cannot be provided by others,
because the source code is not free. For GPL'd software, anyone can
provide those services. There might not be as much money to be made,
but there is enough.
> Of course, free-market competition is not always the best way,
> either, but as a general philosophy I think it holds up pretty well.
I could claim that the GPL does promote free market competition, since
everyone can compete for providing enhancements and support for a
piece of software, but I guess that since I have no grasp of the free
market economy, I'd better not.
--
Lars.Wirzen...@helsinki.fi (finger wirze...@klaava.helsinki.fi)
MS-DOS, you can't live with it, you can live without it.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
news.kei.com!ddsw1!gagme!n5ial!jim
From: j...@n5ial.mythical.com (Jim Graham)
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
References: <C8F20o.41w@crdnns.crd.ge.com> <C8GyBu.AB@oea.hobby.nl>
Organization: what, ME??? you must be joking.
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 05:18:26 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Jun16.051826.3729@n5ial.mythical.com>
Lines: 58
In article <C8GyBu...@oea.hobby.nl> d...@oea.hobby.nl (Dan Naas) writes:
>
> Of course they do. Wouldn't have it any other way. That's why the
>people who use the GNU copyleft have every right to do so. Those who don't
>like it should quit moaning and find an alternative. For example, why don't
>they write public doamin tools to compete with GNU.
Better yet, keep to the standard C libs (curses included, since it's a
standard C lib under UNIX) as much as possible, then you don't have anything
to worry about. This also helps when porting to another system---you don't
have to port the library as well as the application.
> Those in .com domains have many commercial tools available for them
>to choose from. Why should they be looking at GNU? Except with greed in their
>heart. Read the license. If you find that its terms are not agreeable to you,
>look for an alternative. BUT STOP MOANING.
I think you should perhaps reconsider this comment.... Not everyone who
happens to be in a .com domain is a commercial entity. I am in a .com
domain (.mythical.com), and I'm a single end user. I am not a corporation.
I have no budget to speak of. My primary UUCP feed site is in .com, and
therefore, I am too. I think he could probably say the same....
I do have one current shareware product for dos, and am porting it to
Linux...but it seems that I'm probably porting it strictly for my own use,
as it seems that the Linux community (minus a few of us) is absolutely
against anything that isn't 100% free (seems most people would rather do
without, if need be, than pay for something they need). So be it. If
anything, I just won't release the port of this program to the public.
That decision will be a last resort, though, since there are people who
have asked about a Linux version, and I'd hate to let them down.
Sorry if I sound like I'm in a bad mood...I don't mean to. I just don't
understand the attitude that says that if it isn't free, it doesn't deserve
to exist. While it is true that a lot of the free stuff blows away the
commercial competition, I lump shareware into this category, too (blowing
away the [mainstream] commercial stuff, that is). When I look for something
I need, I do look first for something that's either free or shareware. When
I've found everything I can in either category, I determine what I'm going
to use based on which is best (and if it's expensive shareware, on price,
too...I do reject stuff if it costs too much for what it does, or if I just
can't afford it).
I can see someone who doesn't want to use non-free stuff themselves.
Really...I can see this point of view. What I can't understand is someone
trying to force that attitude on everyone else, too, and it seems that a
lot of people posting on this topic would prefer to do just that.
--jim
--
#include <std_disclaimer.h> 73 DE N5IAL (/4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNET: j...@n5ial.mythical.com | j.gra...@ieee.org ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W
AMATEUR RADIO: (packet station temporarily offline) AMTOR SELCAL: NIAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail me for information about KAMterm (host mode for Kantronics TNCs).
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!
caen!batcomputer!ghost.dsi.unimi.it!univ-lyon1.fr!zaphod.crihan.fr!warwick!
uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Message-ID: <1993Jun16.171539.15025@swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <C8F20o.41w@crdnns.crd.ge.com> <C8GyBu.AB@oea.hobby.nl>
<1993Jun16.051826.3729@n5ial.mythical.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 17:15:39 GMT
Lines: 37
In article <1993Jun16.051826.3...@n5ial.mythical.com> j...@n5ial.mythical.com
(Jim Graham) writes:
>
>> Those in .com domains have many commercial tools available for them
>>to choose from. Why should they be looking at GNU? Except with greed in their
>>heart. Read the license. If you find that its terms are not agreeable to you,
>>look for an alternative. BUT STOP MOANING.
>
>I think you should perhaps reconsider this comment.... Not everyone who
>happens to be in a .com domain is a commercial entity. I am in a .com
>domain (.mythical.com), and I'm a single end user. I am not a corporation.
>I have no budget to speak of. My primary UUCP feed site is in .com, and
>therefore, I am too. I think he could probably say the same....
>
The company I work for chose Linux instead of SCO for a variety of reasons
- Stability, Kernel Source, Better tools than SCO and finally speed. Price
didn't really come into it.
>as it seems that the Linux community (minus a few of us) is absolutely
>against anything that isn't 100% free (seems most people would rather do
>without, if need be, than pay for something they need). So be it. If
No correct that - its like fundamentalist anything, fundie GPL freaks don't
know what they are talking about, don't understand their own document and
seem common only because they are loud.
I mailed the GNU people and asked for clarification and was told linking
with the shared library is fine. End of story.
>
>I can see someone who doesn't want to use non-free stuff themselves.
>Really...I can see this point of view. What I can't understand is someone
>trying to force that attitude on everyone else, too, and it seems that a
>lot of people posting on this topic would prefer to do just that.
>
Well all these poor free stuff only people are going to be most upset when
the iBSC2 support is in the kernel, as I will be able to go off and run most
386 unix packages under Linux.
packages
Alan
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!
enterpoop.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!not-for-mail
From: Theodore Ts'o <ty...@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: GNU Public license and the future of Linux...
Date: 16 Jun 1993 21:55:25 -0400
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29
Sender: dae...@athena.mit.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1voiud$7os@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: ty...@athena.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
From: j...@n5ial.mythical.com (Jim Graham)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 05:18:26 GMT
I do have one current shareware product for dos, and am porting it to
Linux...but it seems that I'm probably porting it strictly for my own use,
as it seems that the Linux community (minus a few of us) is absolutely
against anything that isn't 100% free (seems most people would rather do
without, if need be, than pay for something they need). So be it. If
anything, I just won't release the port of this program to the public.
That decision will be a last resort, though, since there are people who
have asked about a Linux version, and I'd hate to let them down.
I think you're misreading the Linux community. There are a large of
number of people who very thoroughly understand what the GPL is all
about; that understand that it's perfectly acceptable, nay a laudable
goal, to have commercial software available for Linux.
Most of us are just tired of argueing with twits who either (a) don't
understand the GPL and bash it, or (b) don't understand the GPL and use
it to claim that all commercial software is evil.
Let me put it this way --- make your commercial software avaiable.
THERE IS NOTHING THE FLAMERS CAN DO TO STOP YOU. They don't have a
legal leg to stand on, as most of them have contributed little or
nothing to Linux. Those of us who have put a lot of time into Linux
both understand that it is perfect legal, ethical, and moral to sell
commerical software for Linux, and wouldn't want to stop you anyway.
- Ted