Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!taronga!peter
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Restrictions on 'free' UNIX / 386BSD (Re: selling 386BSD)
Message-ID: <MLEI7IE@taronga.com>
Date: 17 Aug 92 10:45:24 GMT
References: <PHR.92Aug15214245@soda.berkeley.edu> <MNDIKJ3@taronga.com> <5146@airs.com>
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Lines: 57
In article <5146@airs.com> ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) writes:
>peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>[ who benefits because 386BSD is not under the GPL ]
>>The people who aren't hackers and want to walk down to the store and buy
>>a shrinkwrapped copy of "386BSD-Lite" with a technical support number and
>>a bunch of application programs in shrinkwrap on the shelf next to it.
>I know this issue gets chased around and around a lot, but, after all,
>just because the Hurd is covered by the GPL does not mean it can not
>be sold shrinkwrapped in a store. The GPL just means that the
>distributor has to put a piece of paper in the shrinkwrap saying
>``send $100 for complete source code'' as well as another saying ``you
>may give this software to your friends.''
I don't think that's commercially practical.
>Apple seems to do fairly
>well with a freely redistributable operating system.
That's because their "freely redistributable operating system" is protected
by a dongle called "The Mac ROMS".
>Also, just because the Hurd is covered by the GPL does not mean that
>programs that run on it must be under the GPL as well.
>I thought about these issues a lot when I decided to put my UUCP
>package under the GPL, and I've never seen any argument that was at
>all convincing as to why that was a bad idea.
I've got mixed feelings about Taylor UUCP being under the GPL, but it's
only a small part of an OS distribution, and could be included with a
commercial UNIXoid system without pain. I don't think the same is true
of an operating system itself.
>I've seen convincing
>arguments against putting library code under the GPL, but they do not
>apply if you are using shared libraries on a GPL-based operating
>system.
Well, except for the glue routines, or something like the BISON skeleton.
>>Mundanes are people too.
>In fact, they are the people who could make a shrink-wrapped Hurd a
>success. Hackers would never pay money for such a thing, but people
>who are just interested in getting their work done certainly would (of
>course, they would need good reasons to buy it other than ``it's
>free'').
I can see them buying the first copy, but how are you going to sell
the second one? Mundanes are also notorious pirates, and this wouldn't
even be piracy!
--
`-_-'
Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U`
Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032