Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:35122 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1776 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att-out!cbnewsj!dwex From: dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Organization: AT&T Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 14:56:59 GMT Message-ID: <C5sEv3.BqM@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> References: <9304181046.aa28257@gate.demon.co.uk> <C5qy6E.6HC@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> <1993Apr20.110521.180705@zeus.calpoly.edu> Lines: 240 In article <1993Apr20.110521.180705@zeus.calpoly.edu> jemenake@trumpet.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes: > 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. > You are TOTALLY missing the point. We DON'T CARE if people make money off of our work. We are not in it for money - we are in it for other reasons. And we want people to be able to do ANYTHING they want with it, except claim the wrote it. Don't think we're stupid. We mean "anything". > > 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. > And unless they claimed they wrote it, I wouldn't particulary care. I would like to get the credit, but if not, so be it. > Are you telling me you wouldn't have even a hint of sentiment that > somebody had grossly freeloaded off you? > Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. The only thing that would bother me is if they claimed they wrote it (by removing the copyright, or failing to credit us as copyright holders). > 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. Microsoft taking my work will not take it out of the hands of anyone who already has access to it. If Microsoft manages to penetrate a market we can't and uses our code to do it, more power to them. I think I believe in free software far more than you do. "Economics" does not enter the equation at all. > > 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. > Again, I say "more power to you". Believe it or not, this has already been done, and is being done by others as we speak. We don't look for them to give us back the value they've added to the product. If they do, that's nice (and again, this has been done). If they decide that their value-added is not free, then we won't get it. We'll either do it ourselves, or we'll not do it at all. It still doesn't change what we are doing. I'll give you a real big example: Members of the X Consortium have access to hundreds, if not thousands, of bug fixes to X11R5 that we don't. Some of these we have fixed ourselves. Some of these we are saying "well, we'll get them in X11R6". We're not crying because the X Consortium gives privileges to paying members. Not quite the same thing, but in many way, a much more frustrating scenario than the one you describe. > 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! Again, we come back to "enforcability". We can't enforce such a restriction, so why make it? When we have been contacted by commercial ventures, I have told them that we would like to have the derivation of the work mentioned. And, in general, they have agreed. We're not after lowering "Joe User"'s costs. That's not the point. No one who is aware of our product is going to pay for it from another source. if the user isn't aware of our product, then that's not our problem. If you follow XFree86 at all, you will see that I continually recommend commercial alternatives to XFree86 when these products can provide something we can't. That can be service/support, performance, other features, etc. > > > 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. > Come on. You mean to tell me that Microsoft wouldn't just use GCC if they felt it suited their needs? Get real. They'd be sneaky and devious about it, etc. It is just exactly as illegal from Microsoft to remove our copyright and claim our work as their own as it is for them to violate the GPL (since both are copyrights). The legal ramifications are identical. So why put the restrictions in? If they're going to violate one, they're going to violate the other. > 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. > Regardless of the GPL, they can't put restrictions on MY software. They can put my software in their software and do what they want with it. But they can't stop me from distributing my software exactly the way I do it today. > 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. ;-} > Which is EXACTLY my objection to the GPL. I write software for a living. I LIKE the fact that I make money writing software - it gives me the resources to buy machines so I can do XFree86. As the GNU project has finally realized (vis-a-vis their net appeals), if programmers don't get paid, programmers don't program. > >> >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! > Umm. Is "USL" (ooh - evil acronym!) big enough for you? How about "SCO"? > > Largely because we realize where our niche in the market > >is. > > You're the guppy that gets swallowed by the bigger fish. > Hasn't happened yet. If it does, I will move on to something else. Where exactly is the problem? Somehow I don't see the commercial X vendors supporting 386BSD and Linux and Amoeba and... > > 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. > Again, who are you to get offended in my place? If I'M not bothered by someone doing this, why on earth should you be? > > >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. > Bull cookies. If Apple is going to go up against MicroSloth over Windows, what makes you think they would hesitate to STOMP all over FSF if they decide it would be a useful thing to do? Bad press? Ha! They'd get more bad press from stomping on US than they would from stomping on FSF. So what's the point? > -- > 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 -- David Wexelblat <dwex@mtgzfs3.att.com> (908) 957-5871 Fax: (908) 957-5627 AT&T Bell Laboratories, 200 Laurel Ave - 3F-428, Middletown, NJ 07748 XFree86 requests should be addressed to <xfree86@physics.su.oz.au> "Love is like oxygen. You get too much, you get too high. Not enough and you're gonna die." -- Sweet, Love Is Like Oxygen