Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!labrea!jade!ucbvax!GREMLIN.NRTC.NORTHROP.COM!mrose
From: mrose@GREMLIN.NRTC.NORTHROP.COM (Marshall Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Revisited: Binary-only distributions (long but necessary)
Message-ID: <1022.559265923@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com>
Date: Mon, 21-Sep-87 20:21:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: gremlin.1022.559265923
Posted: Mon Sep 21 20:21:02 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Sep-87 02:29:07 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 50

Folks -

    I contend that "binary-only" distributions are worse than no
    distribution at all.  I strongly urge those of you thinking of
    making contributions to only perform source distributions.  For
    those of you who have already offered binary distributions (e.g.,
    ups and the Siemens RTL window manager), I strongly urge you to
    re-think your position and offer source distributions.  There are
    several reasons for this.  

    First, many sites won't run binary distributions unless these come
    from a vendor with support.  Some of this is due to the possibility
    of trojan horses, but most of it due simply to the lack of
    responsibility on the part of the distributor, and the lack of
    control on the part of the recipient.  I am not suggesting that
    anyone is malicious in the binary distributions they offer; but if
    something goes wrong, it is clearly a nightmare to straighten-out
    and very frustrating to all involved.  

    Second, if you do distribute source, you probably get back bug fixes
    and enhancements which you don't have the time/resources to make.
    In fact, its possible to get back quite a lot this way.  

    Third, with binary-only distributions you have the "but what about
    binaries for my XX computer?" problem.  If you just supplied source
    these would go away.  

    Fourth, there is the openess issue.  For example, in response to
    this message, I'll probably hear things like:  "well, for
    competitive reasons we don't want to distribute source".  Fine, why
    should I (and the rest of the Internet community) provide you beta
    site service for free?  Some hardliners (not necessarily me), might
    take the view that you may be engaging in commercial activity by
    using the network in this fashion.  When you distribute source, you
    are almost always in the clear with respect to responsibilities in
    this area.  It is what part of being in a helpful community is all
    about.  

    Having said I'll this, I will appologize in advance for/to:

	- not being, nor wanting to be, a lawyer

	- ruining it for those of you who like binary-only distributions

	- etc., etc.

Flames to /dev/null, thoughtful comments to me and the list, thank-you
very much.

/mtr