Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:34728 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1703 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!network.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!pitt.edu!venger From: venger+@pitt.edu (The Knight in Silicon Armor.) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Message-ID: <9292@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Date: 18 Apr 93 01:10:38 GMT References: <1993Apr17.190517.4276@serval.net.wsu.edu> <1993Apr17.205715.11278@coe.montana.edu> <1993Apr17.231000.103368@zeus.calpoly.edu> Sender: news+@pitt.edu Followup-To: comp.os.linux Organization: University of Pittsburgh Lines: 42 In article <1993Apr17.231000.103368@zeus.calpoly.edu> jemenake@trumpet.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes: [ Story about DEC ripping off EMACS author deleted...] >Now, it really, Really, REALLY angers me to think of these big >corporations taking public-domain and otherwise free software and >distributing it as their own and actually getting money for it. How >DEVOID of work-ethic does some have to be to pull a stunt like that? And >you're saying that you're pleased as punch if DEC can just ftp a copy of >386BSD and start selling it for $500/copy as DEC-BSD/PC or something?!?! >That makes me ill. It really does. When I code stuff and release it to >the public domain, I stipulate that the stuff is free and is free to >modify, but ANYTHING that is derived from my code or that USES the >binaries has to be free as well. I think that the GNU agreement is >something similar to this. Now, if a company wants to charge for >SUPPORT, or if they want to charge a media fee for distribution.... >that's okay (SoftLanding does this.... as far as I can tell). > >Anyway.... that's what I wanted to say. I think what's griping Nate is that if someone contributes code to a LIBRARY under GPL and someone else creates software and uses that library to compile said software of their own creation, they are not permitted under the GPL to sell it. It's kind of like Borland coming along and saying that because you used TurboC to compile software, they are entitled to a share in any profits since you used their libraries. While I agree that it would be totally reprehensable for anyone to sell the libraries, I do not think it is right to tell someone that wrote 10,000 lines of code that may have 1 or 2 calls to libraries that are under the GPL that they are not allowed to try to get recompense for their efforts. IMHO, if I release something into the public domain, my concern as to the use made of it has ended. This is my opinion. You are free to use and distribute it provided you do not charge for the distribution. If you should, however, derive an opinion of your own from mine, you may charge whatever you can get for it. :-) Snuffy -- Just say NO to .signatures!!! venger+@pitt.edu