Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uunet!kithrup!sef From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Funding 4.4BSD Development Message-ID: <1992Jun28.222402.15130@kithrup.COM> Date: 28 Jun 92 22:24:02 GMT Article-I.D.: kithrup.1992Jun28.222402.15130 References: <79@ampr.ab.ca> <1992Jun26.021947.28286@gateway.novell.com> <1992Jun28.204256.14620@uunet.uu.net> Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Lines: 187 In article <1992Jun28.204256.14620@uunet.uu.net> kolstad@uunet.uu.net (Rob Kolstad) writes: >Only the BSDI-produced sources are not freely redistributable (with the >exception in the future of a window driver or two). Most sources in the >BSD/386 release are, in fact, redistributable. As I commented earlier, a sign of good faith on BSDi's part. They (uhm, you 8-)) did not have to do that, except for the copyleft portions. >As for who gets benefits from where, BSDI benefits when its customers give >it money (presumably because they get benefit). BSDi also benefits when someone contributes software to them, to CSRG, and/or to the world as a whole. (Is this "evil"? Nope.) >BSDI doesn't `hog' the >benefit -- BSDI does everything in its power to spread that benefit around >(in exchange for fairly valued license fees). This statement, however, bugs me. Another way to word the second half of it is, "BSDI does everything in its power to spread that benefit around (but only to those who are willing to pay for it)." Admittedly, that is a bit of an overstatement, as, from my understanding of things, BSDi is also returning a fair bit of code. But claiming to be altruistic and wanting to only benefit the public while adding that other part is really... slimy 8-). >There is no truth to this rumor. I state emphatically that it is BSDI's >intention to distribute sources to those who wish them. Most likely he was simply referring to the binary-only distribution, which BSDi folks have been talking about for quite a while. >Please set them >straight. It is *not* BSDI's intention to distribute binary-only releases >except to people who wish to purchase them for less money than source >releases. Oh? One of the people who reported to me about usenix (which, unfortunately, I wasn't able to go to) said that you talked about "binary-only" device drivers, where the manufacturer would provide a binary release of the driver, and no source code would ever be given, either to you or to the customer. Is this true? If so, then your statement above is untrue. (If not true, good... and I'll straighten out my source. Uhm. No pun intended. 8-)) >Thanks to all who have contributed. We try to contribute back: fixes to >the kernel and utilities, the occasional utility, funding of BSTREAM >development, and other practical things. Please forgive me, but does B"STREAMS mean something different when shouted"? 8-) And, as I said above, and will say again, BSDi does *not* have to contribute anything back: they could have slapped their own copyright and license on all of the non-copyleft files in their product, and never have contributed anything back. That they have is a Good Thing. (Admittedly, they may have had to do that for political reasons, but that's okay, too 8-).) >Mt. XINU didn't offer source, if I recall correctly. Sure they did. Provided you had an AT&T source license to begin with. (I'm hoping they'll also come up with one that doesn't need one, now that they are shipping Mach3.0 for the '386, and there exists at least one free unix server for that setup. If/when they do, I'm also curious as to what kind of license they slap on it.) >Your standards are very high. Mine are about the same, in case anyone hasn't figured that out yet 8-). >Do you feel the same way about all >software? In general, *I* do not run any software on my machine(s) that I do not have source for. When I was at SCO, I used their system because I had source code for the entire system available if I wanted/needed it. Then I left. In the interim, I am still running their system, until I decide on which free system I want to use (linux, 386bsd, Mach3.0+free server, HURD [if/when it ever comes out], or something else). I have decided that I will run a free system. That is, I added another restraint on what I will run: sources, and I must be able to give those sources to anyone I want to. However, I am somewhat special, although I'm not unique. (See below, since it ties to one of your points.) >This sounds a lot like the `all software should be free because >it's so easy to reproduce' argument. I do not buy into that, as you might >well guess. Agreed. Neither do I. But I do believe in free software. I also believe in commercial, proprietary software. I disagree with a lot that Rob says, but that's just because I think he's misguided (and I'm pretty sure he feels the same about me 8-)), not because I think he's wrong. >I think that too many people do not understand that all this `freeness' >isn't quite as free as it might appear. Your arguments make me want to go, "Huh? Yeah? So?" Yes, it costs money (either real or through time) to distribute and support software. So? Nobody has ever said it didn't. I don't really want to get into this argument again, especiallly since the FSF people can argue it a lot better (albeit a lot more extreme) than I can. Suffice it to say that just because it costs money for the physical media there is no need to assume you must sell a license for the software as well. (If, for example, I copy a floppy, and loan it to someone, all it has cost me is some time, which I was probably willing to donate anyway. Does that mean I should charge my friend for the software? Not if I wrote it. [If I didn't, and the license did not allow that, then, of course, I just broke the law 8-).]) >I note that lots of people are busy working trying to build a kernel. >Applications, of course, are what is really needed. Here's the part that makes me different. There really aren't any applications that I need or want that are not part of "normal" unix. An editor (vi, ed, and/or emacs are all fine by me, although I prefer vi). A mailing system (I prefer MMDF, myself). A mail reader (/usr/ucb/Mail works just fine). Networking software (so I can log out and in). A compiler suite. I want a system as a end in itself. I want a system because I want to play with that system, not because I have a task I want to do. For me, an application is wasted. Thus, yes, a free operating system (including, of course, a free kernel) is important, much more so than whether or not Oleo ever gets finished. I am, however, not the average user. On the other hand, I don't know that anybody reading this *is* an "average user." But they are out there, and need support, and the ability to run their favorite application(s) much more than they need the ability to copy some disks and give them to whomsoever they want. >Maybe we should spend >some time developing relatively freely redistributable software like a >WYSIWYG editor, super-duper spreadsheet, or a reasonable database. What makes you think they're not being done? Lucid's Emacs can be turned into a WYSIWYG word processor relatively easily, and sc exists, and is free. The afore-referenced Oleo will be a super-duper spreadsheet, if/when it's completed. And there are several free databases out there. >We at BSDI really are trying to do >the right thing -- but we can't give it all away or we couldn't continue >development! Once again: I strongly, strongly disagree. Because of the limitations you have set on your software, and the limitations I have set with my requirements, I won't buy your software. If you were like Cygnus, and just sold "support," I would probably buy, then. Again, Cygnus is giving away all of their software. There was another company mentioned in the same breath as Cygnus in another posting, also beginning with C, that I can't remember, but I gather they're doing the same thing. The FSF gives away all of its software (although, of course, it is weird 8-)). Now, you probably mean that you think you can last longer, with a higher return on your investment, if you don't make the software free. You might be right: I notice your prices are lower than Cygnus'. And, yes, I know, comparing Cygnus and BSDi is like comparing bananas and kiwi fruits, as the goals and products are different. But saying you *CANNOT*, that it is *IMPOSSIBLE*, for you to live by selling only support seems to be, in the face of Cygnus' survival, a self-serving lie. Maybe you honestly believe it. But at least give me the credit I deserve, when I say that I believe in free software, because *I* believe in *that*. And, once again, because it is a rather touchy topic: it is your *right* to keep your code proprietary. I wish BSDi the best of luck; I think it will be good if BSDi survives. (I also think it will be good if both 386bsd and bsd/386 survive and become popular.) My only problem with your statement is that you are saying such-and-such is impossible, when I have evidence to the contrary, and the condescending attitude that comes across when you talk about something I hold dear (the idea of freely-distributable software). Oh, and one last thing, and I want to state this explicitly, even though it is somewhat redundant: I am pro-free-software. But I am not RMS. My personal needs are limited enough that I can limit myself and not be greatly inconvenienced (my professional needs, however, *aren't*). Because of that, I want 386bsd to succeed. But because I think bsd/386 has a greater chance to reach a different market than 386bsd will, I also want BSDi (and any other company that offers similar offerings). I do not think there is a moral imperitve to make software freely-distributable, I just want to for my own reasons. Rob obviously has different reasons and goals. That they are different from mine (and even, sometimes, conflicting) does not invalidate them. And, hopefully, that mine are different from his does not invalidate *mine*, either. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "My psychiatrist says I have a messiah sef@kithrup.COM | complex. But I forgive him." -----------------+ -- Jim Carrey Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.