Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!helena.MT.net!nate From: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: GPL (was Re: Linux vs FreeBSD) Date: 15 Dec 1995 17:16:28 GMT Organization: SRI Intl. - Montana Operations Lines: 58 Distribution: comp Message-ID: <4asahc$e75@helena.MT.net> References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4alpl5$a39@klaava.helsinki.fi> <4an3hq$r6l@helena.mt.net> <4art3r$2ap@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> Reply-To: "Nate Williams" <nate@sneezy.sri.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: trout.sri.mt.net Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:31166 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:11001 In article <4art3r$2ap@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, Donal K. Fellows <fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: }In article <4an3hq$r6l@helena.mt.net>, }Nate Williams <nate@sneezy.sri.com> wrote: }> In article <4alpl5$a39@klaava.helsinki.fi>, }> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@cc.Helsinki.FI> wrote: }>> Now, nobody in his right mind uses floppies for software distribution }>> any more, so I don't really see the reason for whining about the size of }>> sources. You can easily fit sources on a CD (or two - CD costs can't be }>> high if people actually make money off selling 4-CD distributions for }>> $25 USD). And that releases you of all future obligations.. }> }> *IF* you're a CD rom manufacturer and/or a software house that sells }> thousands of copies of software I'd agree with you, but if you're a }> small software house you'd be lucky to sell 1000 copies. Doing }> one-off's require that buy a *LOT* of hardware ($$), or, you could }> have a CD house build you (minimum of 1000 copies) a CD and sell }> that to your customer. Either way you've got to recover those costs }> somehow, and those costs are significant. } }But the GPL _does_ allow you to recover those costs. }I never once said it didn't. See the comments below. }I'll repeat it again in case you didn't get it the first time. If the }ost of my product is X, and I need to also recover the cost of copying }he software and it's a significant percentage of X, then I'm in a world }f hurt since the consumer will use another product which doesn't cost }s much. }>> When the distribution costs of your software start to eat into your }> bottom line it *is* an issue, so your software costs more to sell }> which makes it less appealing to the end-user. In the long run, if }> I re-write the software from scratch I save alot of money in }> distribution costs in the long run. }> }> (That, or I use non-GPL software that I can use w/out the }> 'encumberance' of software distribution, such as BSD copyrighted }> software. *grin*) } }It seems to me (on an admittedly quick reading) that you have }misunderstood parts of the GPL (like many other people :^) I suspect I understand the GPL as well as most of the net-lawyers on the net, it's just that I tend to see things from a different point of view than those who 'live and die' by the GPL. Mine is 'this is the way things are', and the other is 'this is the way things should be'. Unfortunately, to make a living I must live in the former and only wish for the latter. The latter makes it difficult or impossible for the majority of programmers to make it living. Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule but exceptions do not mean it is applicable to everyone. Nate -- nate@sneezy.sri.com | Research Engineer, SRI Intl. - Montana Operations nate@trout.sri.MT.net | Loving life in God's country, the great state of work #: (406) 449-7662 | Montana. home #: (406) 443-7063 | A fly pole and a 4x4 Chevy truck = Heaven on Earth