Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!caen!destroyer!ncar!csn!raven!rcd From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Funding 4.4BSD Development Summary: about proprietary binary-only stuff within BSDI Message-ID: <1992Jun30.053455@eklektix.com> Date: 30 Jun 92 05:34:55 GMT Article-I.D.: eklektix.1992Jun30.053455 References: <1992Jun26.021947.28286@gateway.novell.com> <1992Jun28.204256.14620@uunet.uu.net> <1992Jun29.053223.3337@kithrup.COM> Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado Lines: 53 sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >kolstad@uunet.uu.net (Rob Kolstad) writes: >>...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. > >Oh? One of the people who reported to me about usenix (which, >unfortunately, I wasn't able to go to) said that you talked about >"binary-only" device drivers, where the manufacturer would provide a binary >release of the driver, and no source code would ever be given, either to you >or to the customer... I think there's a point here which is subtle at first glance but ultimately significant. I'll try to explain it from my viewpoint, which is outside BSDI but sympathetic to them (and I'll hope I do it justice, since I stomped very hard on Rob's toes in a different forum last week). BSDI promised source code for the system, and they provided that: You can recompile the system from scratch; you can tinker with it. Fine. But a problem arose: In trying to provide support for more hardware, and better performance, they found software which would be helpful to the product, but which wasn't available in source for any reasonable price. This presented a dilemma--they could hold to a principle of "source for everything" (passing up software which could help them), or they could acquire the binary-only packages. Pick an obvious example: Motif. You ain't gonna get source for Motif as one corner of a $995 package. What do you do? Thumbing your nose at Motif may not be all that clever. So they did something which isn't part of accepted marketing practice: They asked all the existing customers what to do about this dilemma. The general feeling was "Well, if there's no other way to get it, then do it. But try to get a package you can distribute with source, or try to replace the binary-only package with your own source. And don't let it screw up the pricing--I don't want to pay a lot for a piece that doesn't include source (and that I may not even need)." There's a boundary here that isn't obvious--the difference between source for all that it takes to make a working system _vs_ source for everything that comes with it. Suppose that I start out getting source for every- thing (which is how it stands today). Now suppose that BSDI adds a package they can only distribute in binary...does that *reduce* the value of the system? No. Does it give me less free code? No. In this context, adding a binary-only package is strictly adding value. The situation would be different if key components of the system were only in binary, or if BSDI supplied a mediocre version of a component in source form and an excellent binary-only version. But that isn't the case now and there's no indication that it will happen. (Yes, there's a certain amount of trust involved here! But they're doing fine so far.) -- Dick Dunn rcd@raven.eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado ...The way to meet an impossible circumstance is with voluntary craziness.