Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!sdd.hp.com!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!gateway.univel.com!ns.novell.com!gateway.novell.com!ithaca.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM!terry From: terry@ithaca.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) Subject: Re: Restrictions on 'free' UNIX / 386BSD (Re: selling 386BSD) Message-ID: <1992Aug17.162946.7751@gateway.novell.com> Sender: news@gateway.novell.com (NetNews) Nntp-Posting-Host: ithaca.eng.sandy.novell.com Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT References: <PHR.92Aug15214245@soda.berkeley.edu> <MNDIKJ3@taronga.com> <5146@airs.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:29:46 GMT Lines: 55 In article <5146@airs.com> ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) writes: >peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >[ who benefits because 386BSD is not under the GPL ] > >>The people who aren't hackers and want to walk down to the store and buy >>a shrinkwrapped copy of "386BSD-Lite" with a technical support number and >>a bunch of application programs in shrinkwrap on the shelf next to it. > >I know this issue gets chased around and around a lot, but, after all, >just because the Hurd is covered by the GPL does not mean it can not >be sold shrinkwrapped in a store. The GPL just means that the >distributor has to put a piece of paper in the shrinkwrap saying >``send $100 for complete source code'' as well as another saying ``you >may give this software to your friends.'' I'm a bit confused by this statement -- $100 for GNU Hurd's source code, or $100 for ABXZ Computing's modified GNU source code? Does this require that ABXZ Computing run a GNU tape copying site for their users, or can they give GNU's address on the card? Do they *have* to have a card if the software is modified? Do they *have* allow access to their modifications source? Do they have to allow you to give away their software to their friends, or only the GNU stuff? It seems to me that the only potential market in any of this is in terms of "value added" -- both the support *and* the software variety. As Peter would call them, "mundanes" are where a company is going to make it's money; the free redistribution of copies of the disks seems to hurt this, and thus it must be possible to add code to the disks and thus restrict distribution as a result. The "mundanes" want something that will work off a disk; this is why they don't download/copy themselves. After going through a lot of work to make it "work off a disk", there is little of the original incentive for purchase if one mundane can still copy from another (witness the "popcorn product" nature of DOS). >Apple seems to do fairly well with a freely redistributable operating system. Apple is a horse of a different wheelbase. Apple gives away software to sell hardware. You can't use the software unless you buy the hardware. You'll note that the ROMs, that which makes a MAC a MAC, are definitely *not* freely copiable. This is analogous to giving away $1000 worth of options that only work with a particular companies $12,000 car that costs $6,000 to manufacture (this is being lenient on Apples markup, give student prices are often 1/2 retail, and they must still be turning a profit or the FTC would be down their throats). 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.