Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.alias.net!myriad!mylinuxbox!suck!netcom.com!kevinb
From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Message-ID: <kevinbDJGIzA.39B@netcom.com>
Sender: kevinb@netcom15.netcom.com
Reply-To: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Frobozzco International
References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <DJ6IJE.78D@nntpa.cb.att.com> <4a54u5$jj5@josie.abo.fi> <4ahtib$ckq@helena.mt.net>
Distribution: comp
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 04:54:45 GMT
Expires: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 08:00:00 GMT
Lines: 82
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30048 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10261
In article <4ahtib$ckq@helena.mt.net>,
Nate Williams <nate@sneezy.sri.com> wrote:
>Let's say for example we're in the business of providing a LAN anaylyzer
>product. We want to provide a 'complete' solution to the end users, so
>we sell an entire system pre-configured with our software.
>
>(The business we're in is such that we can not stay competive *AND*
>completely give away the source code to our software, so that's simply
>not an option.)
>
>To save on costs, we can either choose to use 'Linux' of 'FreeBSD' for
>the OS, since we need *nix functionality. If we use FreeBSD, we simply
>irradicate all of the GNU binaries from the system and install our new
>stripped down version of FreeBSD on our dedicated hardware. Then, we
>install our value added LAN software on the box and we're all set. At
>this point in time, we are required to support our product, which exists
>of FreeBSD + our software, and mention that we're using FreeBSD to
>satisfy the BSD copyright.
>
>Hopefully we don't have to support the OS (if we've done adequate
>testing), so the only job left we have to do is support. We don't have
>to worry about providing a special FreeBSD distribution, and we don't have
>to do any OS support (hopefully).
>
>Now, if we use Linux we must provide the source code to the OS along
>with the rest of our product. This increases the size of the
>distribution (we need a bigger disk), and we must also provide the user
>a way of accessing the software, so our software must be modified to get
>at the OS through some hook on our software.
It doesn't require you to provide the user a way of accessing the
source code, as long as you provide the source code on a medium
"customarily used for software interchange", like a CDROM. Meaning
that the medium you provide doesn't necessarily have to be readable
from the system you're supplying the customer with, though that would
be a nice gesture. :-)
As for the added expense, that may well have been a valid complaint
before the advent of CDROM technology, but no longer. Since you can
produce CDROMs for something like $2 or less each, the distribution of
the source of, say, Linux, becomes a non-problem.
The beauty of CDROM technology is that it scales well. It costs a lot
less per copy if you have to press 10000 copies than if you have to
press only 10. But if you are only selling a few copies of your
distribution per year, then (a) it's probably easier to supply the
source on magtape (which is a medium "customarily used for software
interchange") and (b) you have to be charging a great deal of money
(many thousands of dollars) per copy in order to survive, so the cost
of distributing the source becomes a small fraction of the price of
the distribution.
No, in your case, the real reason the BSD copyright is more suitable
to your needs appears (to me, at any rate) to be that you'd have to
avoid your work becoming a "derivative work" of Linux.
>Or we can choose to tell them about it and provide a distribution
>mechanism in our company, which is alot of work and it puts us in the
>position of indirectly 'supporting' Linux as a product, since we look
>like bad guys otherwise. Note that we must provide a type of
>distribution that the customer has access to, which means that it may
>mean floppies, CD, or whatever.
No, it just has to be machine-readable and "on a medium customarily
used for software interchange".
>With LinUx I'm in the position of 'directly' supporting the OS, and with
>FreeBSD I can 'indirectly' support the OS, which is much more easily
>done.
You have the same options with respect to that, and the only
difference is that with Linux you'd have to supply the source somehow.
But inasmuch as you're creating a distribution anyway, it's not likely
to cost you a significant amount extra.
--
Kevin Brown kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
Any questions?