tower@mit-eddie.UUCP (01/18/87)
In article <1026@botter.cs.vu.nl> ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes: > ... The GNU people are >upset because deep in their hearts they, too, know that people would rather >pay a reasonable price for good stuff than get empty promises for free. First, I would like to commend ast for doing MINIX, and going a large part of the way towards giving MINIX its freedom. Second, GNU isn't an empty promise. GNU Emacs is out there. GDB (GNU's Debugger) is out there. Bison, a YACC compatible Parser Generator, is out there. The GNU C compiler (highly optimizing with VAX, 68000, and 68020 code generators) will be released soon. Etc. The remaining large undone piece is the kernel. Work has started on that, and its being leveraged off of existing code for a Unix style kernel, Trix, written at MIT a while back. GNU is a more ambitious project than MINIX, and rms hasn't had much more help than ast. Most of rms' help has been volunteer. rms has also been working on it for a shorter period of time. Third, none of the GNU people I know of are upset. We are just sad that yet more software has been chained up. >Does anyone know how much GNU charges for its "free" software for the tape, >postage, handling etc? Berkeley generally charges something like $125 >for its tapes, as I recall. If GNU also charges $125 for its "free" software >it seems to me that their moral indignation at Prentice-Hall's outrageous >$79.95 price is somewhat weakened. First, "free" doesn't refer to cost, but to the freedom of the software. Second, I would like to present some comparisons between GNU, MINIX, and Unix. I know the facts are straight for GNU, correct me on the others. GNU MINIX Unix --- ----- ---- Is source code distributed? Yes Yes For many more $$ How many copies of the source can you give away, legally? Unlimited 3-4 None Can one legally restrict use by others? No YES YES Can one legally post it on USENET? Yes NO NO Can one legally ARPA ftp it, freely? Yes NO NO Cost of non-ARPA distribution from home organization: $ 150. $ 80. Many times more. People are referred to: - the GNU Public License - the GNU Manifesto - Minix's Licensing arrangements (I have yet to see these) - AT&T and susbsidiary vendor Unix Licenses for further details. happy hacking, len tower -- Len Tower, Project GNU of the Free Software Foundation 1000 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138, USA +1 (617) 876-3296 HOME: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA 02143, USA +1 (617) 623-7739 UUCP: {}!mit-eddie!mit-prep!tower INTERNET: tower@prep.ai.mit.edu
fouts@orville.UUCP (01/18/87)
In article <4564@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> tower@prep.ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes: >Second, I would like to present some comparisons between GNU, MINIX, and >Unix. I know the facts are straight for GNU, correct me on the others. > > GNU MINIX Unix > --- ----- ---- > > >Can one legally restrict use by others? No YES YES > A small nit. I just typed ^H^C to read the GNU General Public License, and discovered that I am required to restrict use by others. In particular, I am required to require others to require anyone they distribute source to that I have distributed which "in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU Emacs" or any part thereof, to be freely distributed and licensed to all third parties on terms identical to those conatined in this License Agreement. . ." I suspect that if I put a copy of the source of GNU in the user contributed portion of my distribution of FOUTS (Fouts' Own Un*x Timesharing System) I would be required by this clause to give the source to the FOUTS away in order to include GNU. As a greedy capitalist, I would prefer to just leave GNU off my distribution tape and not take that chance.
scott@tg.UUCP (Scott Barman) (01/19/87)
In article <4564@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> tower@prep.ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes: > ... much deleted ... >People are referred to: > - the GNU Public License > - the GNU Manifesto > - Minix's Licensing arrangements (I have yet to see these) > - AT&T and susbsidiary vendor Unix Licenses >for further details. > >happy hacking, len tower Where can one find copies of the GNU Public License and/or the GNU Manifesto to review. I've heard enough about GNU that raises questions I think can be answered in these docuemnts. Scott Barman {pyrnj, philabs}!tg!scott
jaw@aurora.UUCP (James A. Woods) (01/20/87)
# ``there's only one "two"`` -- local tv station slogan. just wondering why purveyors of "totally free" unix-like software seem overly concerned with the law, as the gnu project appears to be. re-control through new age license agreements is not really much different from the mentality of an armada of at&t attorneys. i doubt it'd be worth it to gnu to really enforce re-distribution provisos, especially if, as has been said in this forum, they can't even get enough volunteers to completely re-invent the unix wheel. the reality of software around here is that once it hits usenet, people do what they want with it. the u. s. government, for whom i work, has always taken this enlightened attitude. if we (this applies to universities as well) develop something, give it away, and someone makes a buck off it, goody for them if they add value and support it. if private industry doesn't add value and still manages to sell it, the condition never remains for long, since the code, having been publicized as free, informs public-minded whistleblowers who then re-publicize the free code. as for what's available under gnu/minix, there's an obvious merger with combining the nice and free optimizing gnu c compiler and sophisticated public domain utilities not in minix (yacc, lex, compress, egrep, diff, etc.) with the minix kernel. since each package is cheaper than dinner for two (at least in some parts of the world), this is easy enough to do. long live the sean byrne usenet logo (n years of usenet freedom and anarchy), ames!jaw
shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) (01/20/87)
In article <599@aurora.UUCP> jaw@aurora.UUCP (James A. Woods) writes: >just wondering why purveyors of "totally free" unix-like software >seem overly concerned with the law, as the gnu project appears to be. >re-control through new age license agreements is not really much >different from the mentality of an armada of at&t attorneys. RMS and buddies got badly burned once upon a time when they developed software for the original Lisp Machine. Two companies, LMI and Symbolics, were formed to commercialize the machines, and both used the MIT software as their starting point. However, Symbolics slapped all kinds of trade secret notices all over their copies (including stuff that was definitely in the public domain), and reportedly spent a lot of time and effort trying to get sole rights to the LM software from MIT. The three-way tug engendered quite a lot of bad feelings around the department. They're pretty wary now about making software generally available, but it's not clear to me that the extra legalese would make any difference to a sufficiently determined corporation entity (care to bet on the outcome of IBM vs FSF?) > ames!jaw stan the cynic
lum@osupyr.UUCP (Lum Johnson) (01/22/87)
In article <599@aurora.UUCP> jaw@aurora.UUCP (James A. Woods) writes: >just wondering why purveyors of "totally free" unix-like software >seem overly concerned with the law, as the gnu project appears to be. >re-control through new age license agreements is not really much >different from the mentality of an armada of at&t attorneys. > >i doubt it'd be worth it to gnu to really enforce re-distribution provisos, >especially if, as has been said in this forum, they can't even get enough >volunteers to completely re-invent the unix wheel. No, probably not. However, they have provided the public legal standing to take action against anyone who attempts to defraud them by selling GNU. They have provided protection not for _themselves_, but for _you_. I have no association with the GNU project, the Free Software Foundation, nor even with RMS, other than as a happy user of ITS/Twenex Emacs (for pdp-10). Lum Johnson lum@ohio-state.arpa ..!cbosgd!osu-eddie!lum
tower@mit-eddie.UUCP (01/26/87)
rms asked me to post this followup to article <1026@botter.cs.vu.nl>
of ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum). I apologize for the delay (I was
keyboard-less at USENIX for the last week ;-} ).
When Andy Tanenbaum announced his plans for MINIX, I told him that he
could certainly use any of GNU in MINIX, as long as he followed the
terms, which say that everyone must be able to redistribute it in any
quantity to anyone. Also, I said that if he produced something that
fit the GNU system and was suitably available, I would use it.
I don't think this was an antagonistic response.
But I wasn't interested in more than passive cooperation, for two
reasons.
One was that the technical goals were very different and I doubted
that any code written for one system would really be suitable for the
other. He planned a small system to fit the machines now common. I
am aiming for a more powerful system that people will prefer to 4.2 or
system V, to run on the next generation of machine. Each of these
paths has its advantages and disadvantages which I'm sure the reader
can see.
The other is that I doubted that MINIX would ultimately be available
on terms that would allow GNU to use it. I wasn't interested in
investing any effort on it until this doubt was resolved. Now
it appears the resolution is that GNU can't use it.
Meanwhile, Tanenbaum hasn't used any GNU software, perhaps because
some is too big for today's IBM PC's or perhaps because GNU copylefts
would not permit their distribution on Prentice Hall's terms.
I do not understand why Tanenbaum calls the GNU project "empty
promises". Several pieces of GNU software are already in
distribution, complete with fanatical admirers and detractors.
I think we have demonstrated that we can deliver what we promise.
There is no charge whatever for using GNU software for any purpose.
The Free Software Foundation charges for mailing tapes, but this is
not the same as a charge for the software on the tape. That is free,
and you can make as many copies as you like for anyone at all. The
Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charitable organization and
the money that tape distribution brings in is spent on the creation of
more free software. (None of it goes to me personally.)
The GNU C compiler will be released for testing soon. It compiles
itself, GNU Emacs and Monardo's free TeX-in-C successfully, so it is
not far from ready. And it will be free, with sources. (TeX-in-C is
still being tested; the Free Software Foundation and probably others
will distribute it by and by. There will be announcements.)
Further questions on GNU, GNU mailing lists, and the availability
of GNU software can be directed to gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu or
mit-eddie!prep!gnu or seismo!prep.ai.mit.edu!gnu.
rms (Richard M. Stallman) is directly reachable at
<rms@prep.ai.mit.edu>. Please realise that any time you spend
communicating with him will delay the delivery of GNU software, by the
time it takes him to read and reply.
happy hacking, -len tower
--
Len Tower, Project GNU of the Free Software Foundation
1000 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
HOME: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA 02143, USA +1 (617) 623-7739
UUCP: {}!mit-eddie!mit-prep!tower INTERNET: tower@prep.ai.mit.eduscott@tg.UUCP (01/29/87)
In article <4654@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> tower@prep.ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes: >rms asked me to post this followup to article <1026@botter.cs.vu.nl> >of ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum). I apologize for the delay (I was >keyboard-less at USENIX for the last week ;-} ). > ... much deleted ... > I do not understand why Tanenbaum calls the GNU project "empty > promises". Several pieces of GNU software are already in > distribution, complete with fanatical admirers and detractors. > I think we have demonstrated that we can deliver what we promise. > > There is no charge whatever for using GNU software for any purpose. > The Free Software Foundation charges for mailing tapes, but this is > not the same as a charge for the software on the tape. That is free, > and you can make as many copies as you like for anyone at all. The > Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charitable organization and > the money that tape distribution brings in is spent on the creation of > more free software. (None of it goes to me personally.) First, let me publicly thank Richard Stallman for sending me the GNU Manifesto and EMACS "agreement" in machine readable form. I am distributing it, as I recieved it, to some other people who are interested. There is only one comment I want to make on GNU: it's too ambitious and altruistic! I cannot think for a minute that DEC, IBM, or any software house will adapt this idea in this capitalistic society and suspect that the practices will continue ad nauseum. I also think that the treatment of programmers in this document is wrong since GNU will NEVER (and I do mean NEVER) solve all computing problems. If I can give an example from my current job, how about publishing? Will GNU set up the publishing environment we have been using for seven years? I seriously doubt it. Besides, I still believe a system that will be all things to all people will turn out to be a big kludge like OS/VS MVS (and I hated using it too!!). Minix seems more realistic in the relm of society and applaud the idea. Just as soon as I can get the book and software, I will install it (or try to) on my clone. Thanks Andy Tannenbaum, I like the idea. Just one last note to the GNU people: The reason all groups trying to change peoples values in any area fails is because they never work with the goup they are trying to change (the women's movement finally learned this). Most try to radically change it from the outside with alot of resentment! Scott Barman {philabs, pyrnj}!tg!scott
pekka-r@obelix.UUCP (Pekka Akselin) (02/05/87)
I can't keep my mouth shut any more. And this is certainly the wrong place for this. In article <109@tg.UUCP> scott@tg.UUCP (Scott Barman) writes: >In article <4654@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> tower@prep.ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes: >>rms asked me to post this followup to article <1026@botter.cs.vu.nl> >>of ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum). I apologize for the delay (I was >>keyboard-less at USENIX for the last week ;-} ). >> ... much deleted ... > >There is only one comment I want to make on GNU: it's too ambitious and >altruistic! What is the US "star wars" project (for example)? Idiotic too! > I cannot think for a minute that DEC, IBM, or any software >house will adapt this idea in this capitalistic society and suspect that the >practices will continue ad nauseum. There are many other things going on in the world, that is continuing ad nauseam. > I also think that the treatment of >programmers in this document is wrong since GNU will NEVER (and I do mean >NEVER) solve all computing problems. Of course not. There is nothing that is so good that it can't be better. The US "star wars" project will solve the "peace and freedom problem" as the atomic bomb did (have you read your history?). We have the answer, why don't look at it? >Minix seems more realistic in the relm of society and applaud the idea. Just >as soon as I can get the book and software, I will install it (or try to) >on my clone. Thanks Andy Tannenbaum, I like the idea. I too, but I don't through away GNU because of that. I am waiting because I belive they will come out with something. And besides GNU Emacs and Bison is allready here. >Just one last note to the GNU people: >The reason all groups trying to change peoples values in any area fails is >because they never work with the goup they are trying to change (the women's >movement finally learned this). Most try to radically change it from the >outside with alot of resentment! What happens if no one tries anything? Our society will change, but it takes time. Don't ask to what, I don't know (I hope to the better). I am NOT communist, marxsist, socialist, capitalist, kaddafist or egoist. I AM INDIVIDUALIST. (And I want to live!!!) ******************************************************************************* UUCP: pekka-r@obelix.uucp | {seismo,mcvax}!enea!liuida!obelix!pekka-r ARPA: pekka-r%obelix.{ida.liu.se,UUCP}@seismo.CSS.GOV Pekka Akselin, Univ. of Linkoping, Sweden (The Land Of The Midnight Hacker :-)) *******************************************************************************