*BSD News Article 15876


Return to BSD News archive

Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!bogus.sura.net!udel!news.intercon.com!psinntp!megatest!mithril!albrecht
From: albrecht@megatest.com (Dave Albrecht)
Subject: Re: So you say you want an interim release of 386bsd? (What to do?)
Message-ID: <C6tMsn.MF9@megatest.com>
Organization: Megatest Corporation
References: <1993May10.023016.25206@Sandelman.OCUnix.on.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 17:29:07 GMT
Lines: 49

From article <1993May10.023016.25206@Sandelman.OCUnix.on.ca>, by mcr@Sandelman.OCUnix.on.ca (Michael Richardson):
>>From article <C6M5J0.AIq@sugar.neosoft.com>, by peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva):
>   There is nothing in the GPL to prevent you from `commercializing'
> software. What it really prevents you from doing is a quick sale of
> some code and then disappearing. 
> 
With all due respect, it does prevent 'commercializing' in a very practical sense.
I would like to think that everyone is honest and fair too but I know that given
source for a popular commercial product in mass distribution, some number of people
will tweak it slightly (change the appearance etc.) and merchandise it
as their own without distributing the source.  Being realistic, the only reasonably
decent protection for a commercial developer is not distributing source.  Period.
It takes much time effort and costs money to develop products which by distributing
source is given away in an instant.  This is tantamount to shooting oneself in the
foot.  

>>While I admire and respect and yes, use GNU software it isn't as useful to me
>>as it could be because I won't borrow any of the code in it for my own purposes
>>as it restricts my freedoms with how I choose to distribute the result.
> 
[lots of stuff having to do with support and also absolutely nothing to do with my
point deleted]
Get real.  I want the freedom to take the software I produce and make it freeware
or make it commercial without including source (gasp) or even make it GPL
(double gasp) if I so choose.  I want the choice to be MINE MINE MINE. GET IT YET?
Jeez.  That is why I don't use extractions of GNU code in anything of mine.
Certainly I can't use anything GNU in something for my job.  What is
so difficult to understand about this?
> 
>>With all the efforts in languages to foster and encourage reusable code it is
>>nice to see lights in the GPL murk producing code that will be resuable by
>>everyone, not just those producing GPLed software.
> 
>   Wait a minute... you are happy that you can rip off work that would
> not have been possible without the GPL? And you won't share your stuff
> with the rest of us? 

Try lowering the volume of the GNU bible thumping for a minute.  People pay
my salary.  They pay it for producing software.  Of necessity that software will
not be shareable with the community at large.  Most software I produce on my
own time I am perfectly willing to distribute as PD.  If I distribute it as
PD I expect, I want, I am pleased when people use my work in works of their
own whatever they might be.  I am not disputing anyones right to distribute
the fruits of their labor however they choose.  I am simply stating my
personal viewpoint that PD software is generally more useful than that under
the GPL and why.  Given the rather inaccurate and inflamatory phrase
'rip off', your opinions on this topic are pretty obvious.

David Albrecht