Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site x.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!x!john
From: john@x.UUCP (John Woods)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: unix & at&t
Message-ID: <398@x.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 14:27:32 EST
Article-I.D.: x.398
Posted: Tue Jan 29 14:27:32 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Feb-85 00:33:56 EST
References: <7420@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 28
Xref: seismo net.unix-wizards:11717

[ Carelessly setting good sense and taste aside, he joins the fray: ]

As a hacker who wouldn't be happy with any particular distributed UNIX(tm)
binary, I am personally miffed that AT&T has no provision for me.  Tough.
However, given the volume (what is the volume of a bit?) of ``discussion''
[sic] on this topic, it seems that there are at least 100 or so people who
are in a similar position.  How about:  each person chips in $500 or so to
add up to the purchase of a single source license and individual binary
licenses.  The assembly of hackers then goes frenzied on the source machine
in a weekend orgy of creeping featurism, and everyone comes away with what
they want (possibly to return to the trough later).

I do not propose this seriously.  I merely wish to point out that there may
be alternatives to the choice of $40K or "5 fingers".

Just because a "business" license is bought need not imply (I think) that
there is a profit-making business owning it.

Any obvious holes in this?  Or am I making too much sense?
				--------
Standard Disclaimer:  no sane human being or company believes the above
nonsense.  Especially me or mine.

-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

Sorry, I don't feel deep right now.