Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!tut!funic!santra!news From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: Selling of free software Message-ID: <1990Aug12.231312.7944@santra.uucp> Date: 12 Aug 90 23:13:12 GMT References: <5414@castle.ed.ac.uk> <26259@usc.edu> <26149@nigel.udel.EDU> <6--4A8C@xds13.ferranti.com> <1990Aug8.173146.1206@santra.uucp> <+:258U1@xds13.ferranti.com> Sender: news@santra.uucp (Cnews - USENET news system) Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Lines: 95 In-Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) In article <+:258U1@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: >I don't mind that either. The choice is this guy is going to use my code >and be a black hole, or he's not going to use it, then I let him use it. >There are people I know are using bits of my code in commercial programs. >More power to them. The total intelligence of the world still rises, and >nobody actually loses. My goals are different; to me it's more important that _all_ users can improve on the code and have the source easily available for other purposes as well (like hiring a third part to make improvements). To me, this is more important than as wide as possible use of the software. As somebody pointed out, the _user_ loses: (s)he can't hire a third party to make improvements (s)he wants because the source isn't available. With your method, the user is dependent on the one commercial vendor and if the vendor doesn't have good enought support then the user is in trouble. It's a bit like if the only one who can fix your car is the guy you bought he car from. With GNU copyleft, anyone skilled enough can fix problems and there's no monopoly for the vendor. >And if he makes significant improvements to my code (which wasn't of >commercial quality in the first place, most likely) then who am I to deny >*him* the fruits of his labors? But you _are_ willing to deny the fruits of his labors from everybody else ? I suppose next we come to the question of whether or not it is profitable to sell and support software with the GNU copyleft or is the more common 'software hoarding' the only way. Apparently many people think the GNU style is profitable. Cygnus Support sells and supports only GNU software and there are independent consultants which offer support for GNU software. Also some companies sell GNU software - one of these is Intel selling the 960 development kit, others include various normal retailers. Not to mention that most of FSF's income comes from selling GNU tapes and manuals. So you can let him and the rest of us, too, to have the fruits of his labors. >> For these reasons, if I'll make some sizable contributions to Minix >> (or any other effort-taking software development for that matter), >> I'll probably put them under the GNU copyright. > >This will pretty much guarantee that I won't use them. They will also >not get into the X distribution, if they're appropriate for that (David >Betz had to modify the copyright on XLISP for the Winterp distribution). >There are other channels that will close off to you if you do that. This might well be; however, I think more is gained by using the GNU copyright because that way even those people buying X for their PC's can get the source and improve on things. >You have to consider what your goals are. If it's to maximise the >distribution of your software, something like the Berkeley copyright >is better. See above. My goal is to make the software's usefulness maximum to everybody. The Berkeley copyright lacks in this. >> I just give them to the public domain, it easily happens that someone >> takes the software and restricts it's redistribution (like happens >> currently with X, > >X is freely available to anyone who wants it. Unenhanced X. If that's what >you want, go for it. Apparently I was a bit unclear; perhaps this messages will clear my intentions. What I meant was the following: I'm interested in getting X for my Amiga to use it as an X terminal for my pc532 board. OK - there is X available for the Amiga. It's a commercial product and costs somewhat. This is not such a big problem (although it _would_ be nice to get it for free - after all, the original X is free) - what is a big problem is that I'm planning to interface the Amiga and the pc532 with a SCSI interface. I don't think it's quite easy to get source to the Amiga X port. If X had the GNU copyleft I wouldn't have the problem. Of course the X consortium can put whatever copyright in its work it wants and I don't blame it for anything, but I want to make sure that people don't have similar problems with other software if I can do anything about it (like if I write some software). >> [...] Berkeley version of Unix etc.) > >Berkeley UNIX was never "free", but they're working hard to make it so. I meant the various utilities from Berkeley that are free and the usage of them by companies using Berkeley software in their OS like Sun etc. Same arguments as the X for Amiga apply. Also, the license agreement for the OS might state that I can't redistribute the software, even if it is declared free by Berkeley. //Jyrki