Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!uunet!kolstad
From: kolstad@uunet.uu.net (Rob Kolstad)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Funding 4.4BSD Development
Summary: Rejoinder to comments on CSRG, free software, and distribution
Message-ID: <1992Jun28.204256.14620@uunet.uu.net>
Date: 28 Jun 92 20:42:56 GMT
References: <79@ampr.ab.ca> <1992Jun26.021947.28286@gateway.novell.com>
Sender: usenet@uunet.uu.net (UseNet News)
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc
Lines: 167
Nntp-Posting-Host: bsdi.com
--> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
--> From: terry@thisbe.npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert)
--> Subject: Re: Funding 4.4BSD Development
--> Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
--> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 02:19:47 GMT
--> In article <79@ampr.ab.ca>, lyndon@ampr.ab.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
--> |> At this point BSDI and CSRG aren't really that different. Yes, BSDI is
--> |> in it for the bucks, but then again BSD from UCB was never really
--> |> "free" either. We payed via the license fee, and the money that lets
--> |> UCB operate to begin with doesn't come out of thin air.
--> 1) CSRG sources are freely redistributable.
--> 2) BSDI sources are a trade from one encumbered set of files (from
--> AT&T) to another set of encumbered files (from BSDI).
Only the BSDI-produced sources are not freely redistributable (with the
exception in the future of a window driver or two). Most sources in the
BSD/386 release are, in fact, redistributable.
--> 3) The great attraction of CSRG is that I can freely distribute my
--> hacks of their sources and thus look like a nice guy (8-)). Since
--> I have SVR3.* and SVR4.* source licenses, I don't care about
--> getting sources to BSDI's ideas of the "correct" files; I can have
--> CSRG's, no problem; what advantage does BSDI give me? With
--> sources, I can be my own support service.
You can indeed be your own support service! Presuming, of course, that
you can get technical manuals for devices that you have that are not
supported and that you have the skills to find and fix problems in the
networking, virtual memory, and windowing code.
As for CSRG's files, you will also, of course, either have to write the
missing modules in the kernel (and any utilities and window drivers you
might need) or forsake your redistribution right (since you can only
distribute SVR* sources to other licensees).
--> 4) As you say, given that UCB is a publicly supported University, and we
--> paid to let UCB operate in the first place. Question: How does it
--> make sense to pay BSDI, yet again for the same service?
Please do not confuse writing software with providing service. Service is
surrounded by all kinds of other features like: people who will answer
the phone and fix your problems, bug fixes which get distributed
everywhere, device drivers which work on *your* computer, that sort of
thing. Writing software is an important and good thing; providing service
is another important and good thing.
Your comment about publicly supported universities giving you free
anything (e.g., software or an education) is a red herring.
--> 5) Everyone who has paid a license fee for the BSD sources, which has,
--> lately, been more of a Kermit style distribution charge/donation,
--> has put money toward the work on BSD, work which BSDI is directly
--> benefitting from in their product.
I'm surprised that you think this is a major revenue source. I can't
imagine that it is.
As for who gets benefits from where, BSDI benefits when its customers give
it money (presumably because they get benefit). Portraying BSDI as a
`sink' for benefit is certainly a misdirection. BSDI doesn't `hog' the
benefit -- BSDI does everything in its power to spread that benefit around
(in exchange for fairly valued license fees).
--> 6) As has already been pointed out, and probably will be again, BSDI is
--> rumored to be planning to provide source for only those items which
--> have been, by virtue of "copyleft", required to be freely available:
--> ie: a binary BDSI/source BSD distribution.
There is no truth to this rumor. I state emphatically that it is BSDI's
intention to distribute sources to those who wish them.
Anyone who knows the source of the above rumor: Please set them
straight. It is *not* BSDI's intention to distribute binary-only releases
except to people who wish to purchase them for less money than source
releases.
--> 7) BSDI has benefitted from the efforts of a large number of people in
--> this group, who have also provided code, "CSRG style", without hooks
--> on use in a commercial product.
Thanks to all who have contributed. We try to contribute back: fixes to
the kernel and utilities, the occasional utility, funding of BSTREAM
development, and other practical things.
--> I am not against anyone making a buck from public code which they have
--> modified and put effort into; I am simply pointing out the glaring
--> holes in your argument. BSDI and CSRG are certainly different. For
--> what I would use the source for (teaching and reference, as well as a
--> basis for derivative works), BSDI simply doesn't cut it. It's place
I'm working on a paper about why BSDI *does* cut it for teaching. Expect
it within a couple months. I'm also working on educational pricing that
is acceptable to financially strapped institutions.
--> is as a fine product to keep BSD alive in the marketplace as a viable
--> alternative to megaconstructs like SVR4, and for the individual tinker
--> and contract diff-provider for embedded applications requiring a
--> changed UNIX kernel. Mt. XINU has done this sort of thing for a long
--> time. If BSD UNIX is to be a commercial success, BSDI certainly
Mt. XINU didn't offer source, if I recall correctly. It's up to you to
compare the quality and functionality of the releases.
--> offers impossible-to-live-without-in-commercial-UNIX *support*! But
--> I`m not going to buy it if I can't, 1 year down the pike, show
--> everything to a CS student, or have an undergraduate port it to a
--> VAXStation 3100 as a 3 quarter project.
Your standards are very high. Do you feel the same way about all
software? This sounds a lot like the `all software should be free because
it's so easy to reproduce' argument. I do not buy into that, as you might
well guess.
I think that too many people do not understand that all this `freeness'
isn't quite as free as it might appear. Use of the Internet isn't free,
even if you don't pay on a per-character basis. Fixing a broken device
driver or a compiler problem isn't free, it costs your time (time which
only you can put a value on). Acquisition and integration of freely
redistributable software is quite challenging, as it turns out. Our
release engineer spent over an entire day just configuring and compiling
emacs so that it works out of the box with no extra work on the part of a
customer.
I notice that very few people any more grow their own vegetables, even
though dirt, water, and sunlight are readily available (and the plants
reproduce themselves with little or no extra work!). Why is software
different? Because it's `easier'? Maybe for a select few; certainly not
for me (and I fancy myself as pretty good with a keyboard).
I note that lots of people are busy working trying to build a kernel.
Applications, of course, are what is really needed. Maybe we should spend
some time developing relatively freely redistributable software like a
WYSIWYG editor, super-duper spreadsheet, or a reasonable database. Maybe
then we might get a lot more results from our computer systems. Mike
O'Dell reminded me this morning: Nobody wanted a 3/4" drill bit, all they
ever wanted was a 3/4" hole.
Thanks for keeping the dialogue alive. We at BSDI really are trying to do
the right thing -- but we can't give it all away or we couldn't continue
development!
RK
=================================================================
/\ Rob Kolstad Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
/\/ \ kolstad@bsdi.com 7759 Delmonico Drive
/ \ \ 719-593-9445 Colorado Springs, CO 80919
=================================================================
--> My two cent's worth (making a total of four, for today),
--> Terry Lambert
--> terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
--> terry@icarus.weber.edu
--> ---
--> Disclaimer: Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of
--> my present or previous employers.
--
/\ Rob Kolstad Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
/\/ \ kolstad@bsdi.com 7759 Delmonico Drive
/ / \ 719-593-9445 Colorado Springs, CO 80919