Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:34772 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1711 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!caen!batcomputer!ghost.dsi.unimi.it!univ-lyon1.fr!zaphod.crihan.fr!warwick!pipex!ibmpcug!demon!centrix.demon.co.uk!damian Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions From: damian@centrix.demon.co.uk (damian) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes References: <1993Apr17.190517.4276@serval.net.wsu.edu> <1993Apr17.205715.11278@coe.montana.edu> <1993Apr17.231000.103368@zeus.calpoly.edu> Organization: Centrix Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 09:39:24 +0000 Message-ID: <9304181046.aa28257@gate.demon.co.uk> Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk Lines: 53 In article <1993Apr17.231000.103368@zeus.calpoly.edu> jemenake@trumpet.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes: >Now, it really, Really, REALLY angers me to think of these big >corporations taking public-domain and otherwise free software and >distributing it as their own and actually getting money for it. How >DEVOID of work-ethic does some have to be to pull a stunt like that? And >you're saying that you're pleased as punch if DEC can just ftp a copy of >386BSD and start selling it for $500/copy as DEC-BSD/PC or something?!?! > >That makes me ill. It really does. When I code stuff and release it to >the public domain, I stipulate that the stuff is free and is free to >modify, but ANYTHING that is derived from my code or that USES the >binaries has to be free as well. I think that the GNU agreement is >something similar to this. Now, if a company wants to charge for >SUPPORT, or if they want to charge a media fee for distribution.... >that's okay (SoftLanding does this.... as far as I can tell). I have to agree with you here. Nate: I can't see what your problem is in practice. Ok so you feel that public software should be completely free from all restrictions, but unfortunately this world is full of people who are happy to hoodwink people and make a fast buck, by lying about who wrote the software and not passing on that freedom. People who write public software only do it for one thing: to see their name in lights. That might seem frivolous, but I believe it's true. So if that is their only motivation, then don't allow the sharks to take that away from them. After all, no motivation, no software. Us techie's know what we are doing, we know that we can get the latest version of something from the net, other's are not connected, or are not technical enough to realise that the software they have just bought for mega bucks, is public software and that they have not been given the source. The GPL protects the writer & the end user (often the "little guys"). At the end of the day, I think that in practice, that there is no problem. BSD386 is charge-free (except for a requested donation), GNU is charge-free. I don't believe that BSD386 will ever be charged for, so it will stay in the public software arena anyway, whether it is forced to or not by the GPL. Just a few ramblings Damian -- +----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ | Damian Ivereigh | If you can't suss out what this is replying to | | damian@centrix.demon.co.uk | get a threaded news reader, like trn. :-) | | Twickenham, U.K. | This is the best way to cut wasted traffic | +----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+