Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:35091 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1771
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!olivea!charnel!rat!zeus!trumpet.calpoly.edu!jemenake
From: jemenake@trumpet.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Message-ID: <1993Apr20.110521.180705@zeus.calpoly.edu>
Date: 20 Apr 93 11:05:21 GMT
References: <1993Apr17.205715.11278@coe.montana.edu> <1993Apr17.231000.103368@zeus.calpoly.edu> <9304181046.aa28257@gate.demon.co.uk> <C5qy6E.6HC@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Sender: news@zeus.calpoly.edu
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Lines: 132
dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat) writes:
>damian@centrix.demon.co.uk (damian) writes:
>>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?!?!
>> >
>
>I don't understand this. If someone decides to do some work and give the
>work away, and they put no restrictions on it, why should you care what
>people do with it? Using as an example the rather large FreeWare project
>that I am involved in (XFree86), we knew from the day we started it that
>people would likely commercialize some or all of it. It takes a lot of
>chutzpah to be in business. We didn't have the guts/desire/whatever to
>take the work commercial.
You don't have to go commercial in order to make sure that commercial
developers don't try to make money from your work without doing any work
themselves.
> We tell people "You can do whatever you want with this,
>except claim you wrote it. And we'd appreciate it if you gave us credit
>for the work we did."
Yeah, you'd "appreciate it". Here's an extremely hyptohetical case to
make a point:
Let's say Microsoft decides they don't want to put in the development
costs for Windows NT, so they ftp 386BSD and XFree and plaster
"Microsoft" logos all over it. Let's say it's tremendously sucessful and
MS gets away with charging $500 per copy and Bill Gates makes another $7
billion.
Are you telling me you wouldn't have even a hint of sentiment that
somebody had grossly freeloaded off you?
See what I'm getting at here? There's no way you can be sure that the
general computing community (aka "Joe User") will benefit at all from
the selfless, thankless work you've done. You don't think that the lower
development costs of the commercial packages are going to actually lower
the final price of the package, do you? The price of the software is
designed to do ONE thing only: maximize "price*quantity_sold", and the
fact that you ended up doing a lot of their work for free isn't going to
affect that at all. That's not how economics works.
On the other hand, let's suppose some company took XFree and spruced it
up a tad and added some functionality that you really liked. You liked
it better than the XFree you were using and you didn't want to go
through the trouble of coding those same changes in yourself, so you
asked for a copy from them.... and they say "Sure. That'll be $200
please.". What's to keep someone from changing one line of your code and
then charging you X amount of money in exchange for a copy of it.
Hell, I'd think the LEAST you'd do is stipulate that, if anyone uses
your code, they have to put a message somewhere conspicuous that the
software is heavily derived from a package you can get for FREE from
so-and-so. Otherwise, there's no reason to believe you've done anything
other than increase some company's profits. You haven't lowered the cost
to "Joe User" one bit!
> Why hang some rediculous requirements like the GPL
>on it, when we have no intention/desire/resources to enforce it?
Because a corporation won't put their balls on the chopping block like
that. Even if they thought you wouldn't care, the day may someday come
when you DID care (perhaps when THEIR derivative or your software was
very sucessful and you were having trouble making your house-payments).
Unless they have a license to do what they want, no careful company is
going to expose themself to litgation like that.
Well, I just perused the GPL and I think it quite up-front about its
intent. The GPL is intended to make sure that OTHER people can't put
more restrictions on your software. In order to do that, there is a
certain amout of necessary restriction that they must place on the
software in order to ensure that even more restriction. I mean, compared
to the restrictions that COULD be placed on the software, the GPL is
extremely lax. In fact, when I think about it, it seems that the GPL
doesn't restrict what you can DO with the software as far as
modification; it just restricts how mean you can be to the people you
pass the software on to. The GPL stipulates that you have to extend
every courtesy that was extended to you. Fair's fair.
Also, I think the GPL is designed to sort of stack the deck against
commercial software. Since commercial development tools can be used to
develop commercial OR GNU-ish software, GNU-ish tools can only be used
to develop more GNU-ish tools. It's like a one-way door. I like it. ;-}
>> >that's okay (SoftLanding does this.... as far as I can tell).
>FreeWare can coexist quite well with commercial alternatives. There
>is far more cooperation, good will, interaction, etc, between the
>XFree86 Core Team and the commercial "competitors" than most people
>are aware of.
Yeah. Wait until the tables are turned after they get big. Wait until
YOU need a favor from THEM, when their company is being run by lawyers
and bean-counters.... see if they even remember your NAME!
> Largely because we realize where our niche in the market
>is.
You're the guppy that gets swallowed by the bigger fish.
> This is actually one of the most refreshing and gratifying things
>about the project - there is very little competition, just a lot of
>hard work and cooperation.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Okay. I've just decided that I'm going to develop an object oriented
desktop from Windows to compete with Norton Desktop. I'll just search
around for a bunch of folks like you who are looking for a learning
experience. THen, I'll sit around and wait until you guys finish it.
Then, I'll package it and sell it for $100 a copy. Oh... I'll be REALLY
cooperative. Hell, I might even buy you lunch for letting me freeload
off of you.
>The GPL doesn't protect anyone unless they have the resources to try to
>enforce it.
But no software company is going to bet on that. If the company becomes
sucessful at all based upon the merits of your software, SOME lawyer is
going to offer to sue on your behalf just for a cut of the award.
--
Joe Emenaker - Sexual Engineer | Our infernal mailer daemon has been quite
jemenake@nike.calpoly.edu | insitent that my signature be limited to just
..or.. @bslab65.calpoly.edu | 4 lines. However, as you can see, I have
..or.. @cash.calpoly.edu | figured out an elegant way to put as many as