Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sgi!vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com
From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re: RCS question
Message-ID: <85704@sgi.sgi.com>
Date: 15 Feb 91 17:48:23 GMT
References: <9102110954.AA05236@tdisys.uucp> <85549@sgi.sgi.com>
Sender: guest@sgi.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 38


Concerning my note about solving FSF source release issues for RCS, someone
wrote me:

>       I've read the copyleft very carefully, and I believe you could
> satisfy the copyleft by simply putting the source code for RCS (or any
> other FSF software) on a separate tape, and charging your customers for
> the full cost of making and shipping the tapes. It would also be appropriate
> to deposit a copy with the FSF for their dissemination over the network.


That is consistent with my understanding.  Unfortunately, building and
shipping tapes is not so simple.

It is relatively simple to build the masters for such a tape, even after
you handle the paper work that must accompany them to the release group,
and from the release group to those who manufacture tapes, keep the vault
copies, and so on.  It is not too bad to get the right entries into the
price book.  It is not too hard to prepare the various kinds of
documentation describing the contents of the tape for the sales force,
customers, field service, and the software support organization.  One
should have little trouble getting the master past the quality assurance
organization, but you will need instructions for them to determine if the
manufactured tapes contain the right stuff.  There must be enough
documentation, even if only a README somewhere so that the next time
someone works on RCS they'll be able to figure out which of the hoops must
be modified and leaped thru again.  And so on seemingly forever.

From interviewing many people from and at other companies since I went 
professional in the late 60's, I must note that SGI has so little
bureaucracy that many with different histories are horrified.

Commercial computer hardware or software developlment is a lot more work
and less fun than in the academic world.  Maybe that's why there is more
money involved.


Vernon Schryver,  vjs@sgi.com