Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve gnu.misc.discuss:6449 comp.os.linux:12167 comp.unix.bsd:6302
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!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: <1992Oct8.200527.1567@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Reply-To: terry@icarus.weber.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <1992Oct7.040347.425@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1992Oct7.164402.29427@uc.msc.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 20:05:27 GMT
Lines: 62
In article <1992Oct7.164402.29427@uc.msc.edu> fink@et.msc.edu (Paul Fink) writes:
>
>I think it might be more appropriate for linux distribution to be done
>by a user group rather than a for profit company.
Not only appropriate, but the only possible mechanism, short of self
distribution over a network. From the GPL:
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and
disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this
General Public License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any
other recipients of the Program a copy of this General Public License
along with the Program. You may charge a fee for the physical act of
transferring a copy."
In particular, the last sentence, "You may charge a fee for the physical
act of transferring a copy" prevents centralized distribution; this is
because only the distributor may make money; no money may be made from
at the retail outlet, unless the retail outlet provides direct support
or copy production facilities. The only other alternative is that the
company producing the copies pays the retailer per copy sold. This is
illegal in the US, and, I suspect, elsewhere (it's called a "kickback").
Thus we require technically skilled retailers (ha ha, it is to laugh, it
is to make fun of) or legalization of kickbacks.
A change in the GPL from "a fee" to "fees" and "the physical act of
transferring" to "providing" would fix that by allowing a markup at a
distributor and again at a retail outlet. Until then, you aren't going to
see things under GPL in retail outlets except as a "free addon" to other
packages, such as is currently done with the GNU compilers.
The inability of Ingram Micro-D or Softsell or Egghead Software to produce
something which the retailer can mark up will keep GPL "protected" software
from becoming commodity. The inability of "Joe Schmoe Software" to provide
a pallatte of boxed software which they will support will keep distributors
(like Ingram and company) from distributing it, and lack of ability to make
money on a prepackaged product will keep "Joe Retailer" from selling it,
unless "Joe Retailer" is also "Joe Consulting".
This is my main problem with GPL (there are others which I've stated before)
and the one I think will prevent full packages which can't be incorporated
as part of another package from being sold retail, which is currently the
only way to reach the large scale distribution necessary to make the GPL
software anything other than a hacker/academic curiosity.
My 4 cents.
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.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------