Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!hamblin.math.byu.edu!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 17 Dec 1995 23:23:33 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 170
Message-ID: <4b28pl$huf@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4a14v5$1lq@dyson.iquest.net> <4a2kme$32d@josie.abo.fi <4agsg2$bqc@uriah.heep.sax.de> <4ai8rk$maf@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> <4aj6tv$g98@park.uvsc.edu> <4amduo$rnd@news.siemens.at> <4ao7hn$rf8@park.uvsc.edu> <4apvl8$pgs@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu> <4atpt3$cqi@park.uvsc.edu> <4avcab$bk5@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:31360 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:11148
bl03@uwrf.edu (BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM) wrote:
]
] I do believe that companies need a reseach budget...no where
] did I ever say that..In the above comment I said I've seen
] people attempt to do a lot of things.
Please reread the GNU Manifesto on where companies are permitted
to make their money, then attempt to reconcile this with idea
that a company will act to maximize profit in the short term.
I think this eloquently argues that companies cutting out the
"overhead" of research will make more money in the short term,
since any money spent on research in a GNU universe is done for
the benefit of all instea of the benefit of self.
Comapnies spend money to advantage themselves over their
competitors, and don't spend money that doesn't do that (or
alternately, they are quickly cut down by their competition).
] BSD give them the bar and says,"Here it is...all free...no
] R&D cost become some other smuck did it..And no requirements
] to say..'So and so did such and such part..' Because it could
] be considered Adveritising."
You clearly misunderstand the BSD license:
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors.
* 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
* may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
* without specific prior written permission.
So:
1) You *MUST* acknowledge the author(s).
2) You *MUST* not claim your derivative work has been
endorsed by the author(s), nor can you trade soley
on the value of the author(s) name(s) to promote
sales of the product *unless* you obtain consent for
either of these actions from the author(s).
So let's say Linus releases some code under BSD license. What
can't people do?
1) They can't claim "Billy Bob wrote all this himself".
2) They can't say "Linus says ''It's Greeeaaaat!''" unless
they can get him to actually say that.
3) They can't take a distribution which is only partially
comprised of Linus' code and say "Linus wrote this, so
you _know_ it's good", including their own shitty install
and user space utilties that only sometimes work in this
blanket description.
In other words, they can't misrepresent it as their own, and when
they admit whose it really is, they can't make Linus look like
an idiot.
] GPL goes, "Here is what the bar is at...If you want to use us...
] you have to give credit and return back your R&D so no one can
] be taken advanage of."
Except you, turning back your R&D without chance of recompense.
] : GPL suggests that everyone should become contract programmers
] : or product support people if they want to be paid for doing
] : programming. Software itself shouldn't be sold above and
] : beyond a reproduction fee. The economics of such a situation
] : dictate that the company that charges the least will get the
] : money. The company with the smallest R&D budget.
]
] Is this true? FSF believes this...I don't see that written in
] any of the GPL stuff.=) I know a lot of contract programmers
] (one of my bosses is one..And indirectly that makes me one)
] and I swear he charges $50 to $100 an hour for NeXTStep
] programming. Do you think he's getting his money out of it?
1) The GPL is a legal instrument for furthering the goals
of the FSF. I *really* have no problem with its
existance, only with people making claims about what
it is or isn't based on their personal philosophy
instead of as part of a risk assessment framework.
I think anything else hides the agenda by obscuring it,
and it's important to note the purpose of the instrument
to be able to understand its intended effect, and the
consequences if the instrument is successful in
achieving the effect.
2) Your boss (and you) make money off of contract
programming in this fashion because the resulting work
is either privately held after completion (as a work
for hire), or because the situation causes the resulting
code to be non-mission-critical for any given vertical
market, or because the economics are equal in terms of
commercial packaged product vs. a custom product.
So this comes down to "why do companies purchase
software, and what benefit is derived from it?". There
are circumstances in which the derived benefit is
indeed compatible with releasing the end product under
GPL: when the economics of canned vs. contracted are
equal. Even then, there is some risk to the company
paying for the developement.
] I don't believe that GPL makes that DRAMATIC effict on R&D...
I agree. Because it is not universal at the present time. Read
the GNU Manifesto.
] I could open up LameBSD..Sell it and never do a SINGLE kernel
] or utility patch and attempt to hid the fact of who I 'stole'
] it from..(It would not work..but hey..You couldn't stop me.)
I could, and I would. So would the University os California;
the countersuit against USL was not specious nor gratuitous.
And since you are now commercial, BSDI and other commercial
vendors would chip into the legal slush fund to nail you out
of the market (since you are now their competitor).
I believe many of us could claim that you had done "irreperable
harm" by not complying with the credit clauses. And if you *did*
comply with the credit clauses (like UCB forced USL to do), then
if you released a hacked up version, we could claim damage to
our good name (as serious as trademark violation or libel).
] That seems like it would have WORSES of an affect on R&D.
] If your company does release anything back under BSD,
] you might as well kiss it goodbye from my standpoint.
That's idiotic.
First, if they are just relabelling, they will always be beind
the crest of the wave and have nothing to offer over the free
version.
Second, if they do make patches, unless they give up tracking
the free effort (which has a *huge* manpower advantage), they
will have an increasingly difficult task of tracking the free
source tree changes, since every mod they make is one more
change requiring reintegration.
There is the possibility that they could go it on their own if
they branched, largely ignored the free code base, and provided
sufficient "value add" that they were competitive with the larger
developement effort. But then they'd hardly be stealing, since
they must obey the credit clauses. And if they do, they are
granted the right to use the software in that way. It can only
raise the stature of the free code.
] Without GPL..I think it might be more of a hellish life for
] *BSD* and Linux.=)
I agree. The tools would be difficult (not impossible) to
replace. That's the biggest factor, and it's more of a factor
for NetBSD (and even then, several of their platforms would
still be OK). Many i386 tool chains exist, including a full
compiler, under BSD copyright.
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.