Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news.sprintlink.net!helena.MT.net!nate From: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: GPL (was Re: Linux vs FreeBSD) Date: 13 Dec 1995 17:46:33 GMT Organization: SRI Intl. - Montana Operations Lines: 75 Distribution: comp Message-ID: <4an3hq$r6l@helena.MT.net> References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4a54u5$jj5@josie.abo.fi> <4ahtib$ckq@helena.mt.net> <4alpl5$a39@klaava.helsinki.fi> Reply-To: "Nate Williams" <nate@sneezy.sri.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: trout.sri.mt.net Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30148 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10339 In article <4alpl5$a39@klaava.helsinki.fi>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@cc.Helsinki.FI> wrote: >[ sorry for those people reading this in bsd.misc, but this is > crossposted to linux.advocacy too.. ] > >In article <4ahtib$ckq@helena.mt.net>, >Nate Williams <nate@sneezy.sri.com> wrote: >> >>This one's been answered, but the GPL requires that if *YOU* distribute >>binaries of GPL software *YOU* are required to distribute the source code >>for up to 3 years. > >If you distribute binaries of GPL'd code, you have no such obligation at >all, _assuming_ you also distribute the source with the binaries. There >is no 3-year rule in that case at all, so the _only_ overhead of >distributing GPL'd binaries is that you have to distribute the source in >the same package. Agreed. If you look back in the midst of the previous article (I know, it's difficult to find in there), you'll note that the distribution argued about was a binary-only distribution. However, if you didn't catch that I can see where you would see my statement as being wrong. Context is a wonderful thing. :) >Now, nobody in his right mind uses floppies for software distribution >any more, so I don't really see the reason for whining about the size of >sources. There are still many folks who don't have access to CD rom players. Now, you *could* distribute the source on a CD and follow the 'letter' of the law, but it's not necessarily following the spirit of the law. Most PC software is still being distributed on floppies. > You can easily fit sources on a CD (or two - CD costs can't be >high if people actually make money off selling 4-CD distributions for >$25 USD). And that releases you of all future obligations.. *IF* you're a CD rom manufacturer and/or a software house that sells thousands of copies of software I'd agree with you, but if you're a small software house you'd be lucky to sell 1000 copies. Doing one-off's require that buy a *LOT* of hardware ($$), or, you could have a CD house build you (minimum of 1000 copies) a CD and sell that to your customer. Either way you've got to recover those costs somehow, and those costs are significant. When the distribution costs of your software start to eat into your bottom line it *is* an issue, so your software costs more to sell which makes it less appealing to the end-user. In the long run, if I re-write the software from scratch I save alot of money in distribution costs in the long run. (That, or I use non-GPL software that I can use w/out the 'encumberance' of software distribution, such as BSD copyrighted software. *grin*) >[ Now, the argument that some people don't want to distribute sources in > the _first_place_ is another matter, but that's even easier to handle: > don't use a GPL'd base. If you don't want to distribute sources, why > do you think you have any right to use the work of other people? Write > your own code from scratch, and _then_ do a binary-only distribution ] Exactly the point being made. The original post stated that people *should* use GPL software because it's better than BSD software, and the counter arguement was that it's NOT the best for *everyone*. In the imperfect world we live in, there are certain things that don't make sense from a business point of view that make perfect sense from a 'non-business' point of view. (I can't think of any word which folks will not take offense at for non-business) Nate -- nate@sneezy.sri.com | Research Engineer, SRI Intl. - Montana Operations nate@trout.sri.MT.net | Loving life in God's country, the great state of work #: (406) 449-7662 | Montana. home #: (406) 443-7063 | A fly pole and a 4x4 Chevy truck = Heaven on Earth