John McNamee <jpm@bnl.ARPA> (01/16/85)
On January 14 I sent out a flame about the cost of Unix source code for people not at educational institutions. It was in reply to messages from Lauren Weinstein and Barry Shein. They were saying that AT&T is being very nice and we should ALL be thankful that they give sources away cheap. Neither made any mention of the fact that sources are only cheap if you are an educational institution, and that Joe Random Hacker (thats me) is left out in the cold when he wants sources for his home Unix machine. Included in my flame were comments about what a hacker can do if he wants Unix sources for his machine. One of the options is to steal them. I said that I would probably do that rather than go without. That is against the law (unless there is a hole in the AT&T license, which I think there is, but I dont have the money for legal fees to be a test case). Its not that I am the only person who ever thought of stealing the Unix sources (recent postings to Unix-Wizards indicate that lots of people have already done it), its just that I said so in public. I have a talent for saying in public that I do things that lots of other people do, but they just keep quiet about it. So I eat sh*t for it, and most people can pat themselves on the back for being Mr. or Mrs. Morality and telling me what a jerk I am. Of course they will continue to ignore the real problem, having focused instead on what a bad person I am. Here is my origial message again, minus any statement about stealing sources. Would anybody care to comment on the REAL issue here, or do you all think that small users are left out in the cold, but derserve it because they cant afford a $40k source license? >To: lauren@rand-unix, root%bostonu.csnet@csnet-relay >Subject: Re: AT&T and Unix > >I'm happy that you two are able to obtain Unix source code at a reasonable >price. AT&T wants $40k from me. Maybe if AT&T were doing something nice for >me I might not think about holes in their license. I'm just a single hacker, >not connected to any university that got Unix cheap, so it costs me the full >$40k if I want the sources legally. All your comments about how easy it is >to change Unix, how enlightened AT&T is to make it available cheap, and how >much better off we all are because AT&T is like this: THEY DONT APPLY TO >PEOPLE WHO ARENT AT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND CANT AFFORD $40,000. While >there is some argument that everybody is better off because Berkeley got >Unix cheap, that isnt enough to satisfy me. > .... >So before you start saying how nice AT&T is, think about who they are being >nice to. To you they may be giving cheap sources, but they are saying "Let >them eat binaries" to the rest of us. -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm jpm@BNL.ARPA
BostonU SysMgr <root%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA> (01/16/85)
Ok, gotta comment although I promised myself I would drop this. I think if you re-read my message I mentioned over and over again that these giveaways were for educational institutions only and we should be thankful for that aspect. My whole reference to GNU addressed your point about Joe (or Jane) random hacker. I HATE when someone, deciding that they can't argue against what you said, just decides to claim you said something completely different that they CAN argue against (straw-man.) It's bona-fide, you just want to blow steam and don't really have any interest in a discussion so why don't you just take this to your corner bar. -Barry Shein, Boston University
pleasant@topaz.ARPA (Mel Pleasant) (01/17/85)
> Would anybody care to comment on the REAL issue here, or do you all think > that small users are left out in the cold, but derserve it because they > cant afford a $40k source license? I think you are missing the point. But since you insist, I'll address your issue first. Many many older corporations have software which might fare better if prices on the software were lowered drastically. This is mostly due to more powerful and cheaper personal computers. Their inability or lack of desire to reduce their prices is a perogative that they hold. With the way things stand now, YOU ARE LEGALLY OUT IN THE COLD. Until someone legally challenges AT&T, they own the software and can charge whatever their little hearts desire. If they want to continue in the path that they have chosen, only time will tell us if they've taken the proper path. With the advent of GNU, we are given an inkling that AT&T will only hurt itself in the long run - but we'll have to wait and see!!! Issue two - You do not have some basic right that allows you to rip off someone else's software just because you happen to like it. Whether they can continue to sell it or not doesn't really come into play. If you want to claim that AT&T is wronging you in some way - then fine. But your stealing their software is also wrong. I don't know about you but I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right. If you rip off a copy of the software YOU ARE A THIEF. *EVEN* if AT&T is commiting a wrong it still makes you no less a thief. So, while you are asking everyone to consider your point of view, YOU should consider the other issue being expressed here. In other words - THERE IS *MORE* THAN ONE REAL ISSUE HERE -Mel Pleasant ...seismo!topaz!pleasant
mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) (01/23/85)
>>I'm happy that you two are able to obtain Unix source code at a reasonable >>price. AT&T wants $40k from me. Maybe if AT&T were doing something nice for >>me I might not think about holes in their license. I'm just a single hacker, >>not connected to any university that got Unix cheap, so it costs me the full >>$40k if I want the sources legally. All your comments about how easy it is >>to change Unix, how enlightened AT&T is to make it available cheap, and how >>much better off we all are because AT&T is like this: THEY DONT APPLY TO >>PEOPLE WHO ARENT AT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND CANT AFFORD $40,000. While >>there is some argument that everybody is better off because Berkeley got >>Unix cheap, that isnt enough to satisfy me. >> .... >>So before you start saying how nice AT&T is, think about who they are being >>nice to. To you they may be giving cheap sources, but they are saying "Let >>them eat binaries" to the rest of us. AT&T doesnt distribute UNIX source cheaply to random hackers for a number of reasons: 1) Not profitable. 2) They lose some (most) of their control over it. What are they going to do if you distribute the source to 10 of your friends, sue you? What does that get them? By not selling it cheap they lose a few small customers. Big Deal. Besides, most of the people who want to hack/look at the source already can. They get jobs working for OEMs, VARs, and software houses where not only do they get to hack with the source, they get paid for it. I would guess that most of the people on the net fall into this category. >>>> "everybody is better off because Berkeley got Unix cheap." <<<< Bullshit. AT&T is better off because Berkeley got Unix cheap. Where do you think Unix would be now hadn't it taken off in the university environment? No where. Deceased. Defunct. [ I hear shouts of sacrilege and treason.] Where was IBM's CMS back in 1964 when it was being developed? Nowhere. The same place any "great and wonderful" piece of software go when nobody goes around extolling it's virtues (and marketing it). I would not be surprised if sometime in the near future the educational source discounts dried up. Now that UNIX has a real market, AT&T doesnt really need them anymore. Mike Schloss
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/23/85)
> Would anybody care to comment on the REAL issue here, or do you all > think that small users are left out in the cold, but derserve it > because they cant afford a $40k source license? ----------- I think the popularity of Unix and the fact that it has been available as it has are fortunate accidents. If AT&T had been in the computer business when it was developed, we never would have had the chance to hack on it. I think AT&T has every right to charge whatever they want, but I don't think they deserve any particular applause for it. If they made source available, under non-disclosure/non-resale agreements, to EVERYBODY then they would deserve applause. I don't think either I or AT&T would feel significant moral outrage at your taking a copy of the sources to use on your personal machine as long as you didn't (a) sell it or pieces of it or (b) tell everybody that you had it. Somebody might be able to construct some kind of analogy to the fair use principle in coyright, though it would be stretching a point. If you go around saying "Look what I got," you should expect to have it taken away from you. It IS theft, but it's not necessarily reprehensible. I'd like to see GNU succeed. I'd like to see AT&T recognize that if they got $500 from everybody who'd like to have the Unix sources they'd probably make more money than they have made from Unix. Peace, love, and understanding would be nice, too. Could you guys stop yelling at each other and each assume, for a minute or two, that the other is a rational, well-meaning person who just has a different opinion? scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (01/28/85)
In article <47500006@ccvaxa.UUCP> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (Scott Preece) writes: >I'd like to see AT&T recognize that if they >got $500 from everybody who'd like to have the Unix sources they'd >probably make more money than they have made from Unix. I think this rather neatly summarizes the problem with the "ATT is cheating us" theory -- there is basic misunderstanding of some of the economics involved. It's the old "you sell enough, the price keeps coming down towards zero" approach. In fact, AT&T couldn't afford to sell UNIX sources for $500 a crack, any more than GM can afford to sell cars at that price. The problem in GM's case is parts; the problem in AT&T's is (a) support and (b) paying for development. Even assuming you charge a separate fair (and profitable) price for the manuals and the distribution media, AT&T is still going to be stuck with a lot of per-license support costs. Okay, so they can charge for the support. It's gonna cost a lot (though not $43,000). But a lot of the rest goes to pay for deveopment, which in this case means Bell Labs. A neat place, but rather expensive to run. That $43K pays not only for UNIX, but for a whole bunch of failed projects that might have been UNIX, might have been part of it, or led up to it. Or might still be -- Research Version 8 and C++ aren't failures, to name a couple we know about. Also, if AT&T charges $500 a crack for complete UNIX sources, you will see two major side effects: AT&T will have a much harder time keeping ownership of the sources, and a lot of other software developers will find themselves put out of business. The first comes because there will be more people with access to the sources, and because a court claim involving N copies of illegal UNIX will involve a much smaller amount of dollars. Okay, you say, so AT&T won't care so much because of their volume. You may be right, but it's an irreversible step, and not one AT&T is going to take lightly and quickly. The software developers are going to be hurt because UNIX puts a floor on software prices. I'm not talking about PC software for the mass market here. I'm talking software for big computers -- Vaxen and upwards. In those markets, there just aren't that many customers, so you can't pay your development costs on volume. That's why big-computer software is expensive. Prices of $10,000 for a binary license, $100,000 for a source license, are not at all uncommon from garage-shop developers. That's not based on greed -- it's based on a realistic understanding of the costs of actually running a company, especially a tiny one. I already use a standard argument in negotiating prices with this sort of company: "explain to me why I should pay $10,000 to you when I can get all of UNIX in binary for as little as $7200, and in source for less than $20,000, and UNIX has a tool that does most of what yours does." It is a hard argument to respond to. So when you scream to have the price of UNIX lowered so you, too, can get rich writing sexy software, remember that when you try to sell your software, I'm going to be standing there pointing out I can get all of UNIX for $500. That sort of development would not destroy the software industry, but it would change it radically. In fact, if AT&T *did* lower the price that far, other manufacturers would be very likely to scream in antitrust court. Do you think DEC can afford to sell VMS for $500 a crack? Do you think they can compete with UNIX if they don't? [Okay all you :-) types, I didn't mean VMS has to be $500 to compete with UNIX at $43K.] -- Geoff Kuenning Unix Consultant ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff
mb@ttidcb.UUCP (Michael A. Bloom) (01/28/85)
>I would not be surprised if sometime in the near future the educational >source discounts dried up. Now that UNIX has a real market, AT&T doesnt >really need them anymore. I can't agree with this. UNIX's livelihood depends upon the existance of UNIX programmers. The reason that there are so many of such has been AT&T's educational pricing. If AT&T's educational discounts were to dry up, so would the supply of unix programmers, and later UNIX* itself. * UNIX(TS) is a trade secret of AT&T Bell Laboratories -- -- Michael Bloom --- {philabs,trwrb,cadovax,randvax}!ttidca!mab
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/28/85)
> I'm sure they get a tax break for the educational donation, and by > making it available to schools, they are sure to develop entire > generations of computers freaks who demand to work on Unix, ... ---------- I'm pretty sure the tax code restricts their deduction to the actual cost of what they turn over, which would probably be just the tapes. Apple wanted to get this changed for their "an apple for every school" plan, but I think Congress rejected it at least once. Maybe they changed their mind later. Getting a deduction for full retail price would certainly seem to be unfair. scott preece gould/csd-urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) (01/31/85)
> That sort of development would not destroy the software industry, but it > would change it radically. For the better I think. -- Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls