Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Restrictions on free UNIX / 386BSD (Re: selling 386BSD) Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!wupost!sdd.hp.com!think.com!unixland!rmkhome!rmk From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Organization: The Man With Ten Cats Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:53:26 GMT Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Message-ID: <9208181753.32@rmkhome.UUCP> References: <PHR.92Aug15214245@soda.berkeley.edu> <YSDIBS4@taronga.com> <9208162341.30@rmkhome.UUCP> <1992Aug17.225116.20533@panix.com> Lines: 41 In article <1992Aug17.225116.20533@panix.com> tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) writes: >In article <9208162341.30@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >>In article <YSDIBS4@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>>In article <PHR.92Aug15214245@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes: >>>> If 386BSD was copylefted, it would be Linux. It's the absence of copyleft >>>> that leads to the possibility of more than a bunch of random hackers >>>> benefiting from it. >>> >>>>Please clarify this. How is anyone else prevented from benefitting >>>>from it? Say, for example, the same people who now benefit from GCC? >>> >>>OK, I missed one aspect of this in my previous article. There is a large >>>category of people who now benefit from GCC who would not be able to >>>benefit from a GPL-covered 386BSD. Next, Sun (In Solaris 2), and I believe >>>MIPS ship GCC with their products, in some cases as the primary compilers. >>>This sort of distribution is not practical for an operating system. >> >> >>And from reading comp.unix.solaris, I get the idea that a number of development >>shops will buy compilers for Solaris 2.0 because of the GNU Copyleft. > >I'm sorry, that's just stupid. Is this another reincarnation of the anti-FSF >propaganda line about "if you compile your code with GCC, it's covered by >copyleft!!!!"? That suggestion is patently false. The degree to which a number >of commercial software houses are frightened of the FSF is neatly displayed by >the persistence of this absurd rumor. When an organization introduces a new and novel way of controlling the uses of a product into a society that is infatuated with litigation, it should expect fear. Software houses such as Lotus and Wordperfect want complete assurance that their product is secure under the law when it goes out the door. There is no court record to show what happens when the buyer of a commercial software product demands source from the author because it was compiled using GCC, and should fall under the GNU Copyleft. -- Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP