Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:34708 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1694
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!network.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!olivea!charnel!rat!zeus!trumpet.calpoly.edu!jemenake
From: jemenake@trumpet.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Message-ID: <1993Apr17.231000.103368@zeus.calpoly.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 93 23:10:00 GMT
References: <1993Apr15.225354.18654@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1993Apr17.175431.25015@coe.montana.edu> <1993Apr17.190517.4276@serval.net.wsu.edu> <1993Apr17.205715.11278@coe.montana.edu>
Sender: news@zeus.calpoly.edu
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Lines: 58
nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes:
>HJ - Linux will use whatever better in 386bsd. But 386bsd has to
>HJ - start from scratch, unless you do it yourself. For example,
>HJ - 387 emulation and C library.
>
>Nate - And then Linux and the GNU folks will take what 386BSD has done and
>Nate - restrict it. Now, isn't that nice....... taking my work and restricting
>Nate - it. I always thought that was awful kind of them. (NOT!)
>Nate -
>Nate - Who really likes GNU utilities, but hates the way alot of folks take
>Nate - other peoples programs and code, fix them and then don't make the
>Nate - changes 'completely redistributable;
>
>HJ -
>HJ - If everybody did that, the GNU copyright would not be a problem. Is
>HJ - your purpose to let someone make "completely non-redistributable"
>HJ - stuff? Am I missing something?
>
>No, my purpose is to make 386BSD completely re-distrubutable, with NO
>strings attached. That means Sun, DEC, HP, Ren and Stimpy, or whoever
>can take this code and sell a binary copy of it. The GPL does not allow
^^^^
>this.
I have a big problem with that and I'll tell you why. This is how the
whole GNU project was explained to me by a good friend. Forgive me if
it's not exactly right:
Apparently the guy who wrote Emacs released it into the public domain.
He made it completely redistributable. As the story was told to me, DEC
Corporation saw Emacs and liked it and decided that they were going to
take it. I don't recall if they just started selling it or if they
somehow "assumed" the rights of emacs. This pissed the guy off... who
decided he was going to write a NEW or "GNU" version of emacs and was
going to reserve the rights just enough so that nobody else could claim
the rights to it.
Now, it really, Really, REALLY angers me to think of these big
corporations taking public-domain and otherwise free software and
distributing it as their own and actually getting money for it. How
DEVOID of work-ethic does some have to be to pull a stunt like that? And
you're saying that you're pleased as punch if DEC can just ftp a copy of
386BSD and start selling it for $500/copy as DEC-BSD/PC or something?!?!
That makes me ill. It really does. When I code stuff and release it to
the public domain, I stipulate that the stuff is free and is free to
modify, but ANYTHING that is derived from my code or that USES the
binaries has to be free as well. I think that the GNU agreement is
something similar to this. Now, if a company wants to charge for
SUPPORT, or if they want to charge a media fee for distribution....
that's okay (SoftLanding does this.... as far as I can tell).
Anyway.... that's what I wanted to say.
--
Joe Emenaker - Sexual Engineer | Our infernal mailer daemon has been quite
jemenake@nike.calpoly.edu | insitent that my signature be limited to just
..or.. @bslab65.calpoly.edu | 4 lines. However, as you can see, I have
..or.. @cash.calpoly.edu | figured out an elegant way to put as many as