Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve gnu.misc.discuss:6442 comp.os.linux:12072 comp.unix.bsd:6257 Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) Subject: Re: distributing linux on floppies Message-ID: <1992Oct9.064418.18514@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu Organization: University of Utah Computer Center References: <1992Oct8.200527.1567@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1b27slINNj2f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <1992Oct9.001607.7471@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1992Oct9.010252.8133@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 06:44:18 GMT Lines: 69 Look, I don't want to deal with the religious war any more, so I won't. 1) Someone asked why people weren't selling 386BSD and Linux for $50. 2) I did a simple risk-assessment and materials/labor costing. 3) One tiny element of risk was deemed to be the wording of GPL with regard to the putative publisher using the standard software distribution channels. 4) This was condemnded as an attack on FSF, one of many organizations distributing under GPL, and by no means the only one. 5) This was also condemned this as an attack on the GPL concept. 6) Individuals demanded I justify why I assigned a risk to GPL distributed software. 7) I justified the assesment based on the somewhat unclear wording of several sections of the GPL, and suggested a possible replacement, and went on to clarify what a real lawyer (as opposed to a net lawyer) found lacking from the perspective of potential distributor. At no time did I attack the spirit of the GPL, only the wording. 8) No doubt the software authors would agree to the wording changes if contacted personally for distribution priviledges, since they apply to clarification of the spirit of the GPL rather than to a change in it. I believe I correctly identified the price range the materials and manufacturing would fall in. I also believe I identified the majority of risks to be considered from a *business perspective*, even the very small one of misinterpretation of the GPL; as I have stated before, this risk is eliminated by componenting the software and not charging for it at all, or by strengthening the wording of the GPL to better reflect it's spirit, leaving no room for any adverse interpretations. Since the original authors still own code under GPL, there is nothing preventing a seperate negotiation for distribution rights. Obviously, the reason companies aren't selling 386BSD right now is the greatest risk facing a potential distributor, which we all agree is AT&T. None of us wants to be in BSDI's shoes. BSDI has bravely accepted this risk and the attentive lawsuit as part of the risk of their doing business, and they have no doubt priced accordingly. The idea that GPL licensing on an easily isolated component is preventing the sale of 386BSD is laughable, as is whether the end price is of the product on CD's is +/- $20, given that the majority of sales wouldn't even be on CD ROM if 386BSD follows the Interactive/SCO distribution model, and this cost is still below that of a floppy distribution by at least $30. I personally dislike the GPL, but *not* on the basis of anything I see as an unmanageble risk. Everyone is entitled to their religion; mine simply does not include the concept of "copyleft". I don't believe that this has been brought into the discussion when stating what I believe to be a business perspective. I have a not inconsiderable amount of experience with day to day operations in a small software company, and would probably be taking the same risks BSDI has taken if I had their backing and staff. It's time to stop muddying the real issues with religion and get back on track. Terry Lambert terry@icarus.weber.edu terry_lambert@novell.com --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.