Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!lwall
From: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1, part 1 of 15, etc
Message-ID: <6734@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Date: 5 Jan 90 11:02:24 GMT
References: <74065@uunet.UU.NET> <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk>
Reply-To: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 27

In article <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes:
: P.P.S.  Why don't Larry Wall or the FSF try to charge everyone for *their*
: 	  software?

Primarily because I'm out to set a standard, not to make a buck.  Those
who try to make bucks very frequently find that they neither make bucks
nor set standards.  A commercial product has increase the standard of
living by a certain percentage to be viable, and I seem to specialize
in doing things that improve the standard of living just a little less
than that magical percentage.  In other words, I tend to write things
that people wouldn't pay much for because they already have other ways
to do it.

But if it's free, and noticeably better, most everyone wants it, and nobody
has an excuse for staying in the dark ages.

If ksh had been free, I suspect that very few of us would be using csh
any more.  If patch had been a commercial offering, you wouldn't find
it on many machines yet.

You CAN set standards while making bucks, but it's a much tougher row to how.
Well, I should revise that.  It's easy to set standards.  What's hard is
to set a single standard.  Look at Unix.   :-)

On the other hand, making bucks has something to be said for it...

Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov