mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) (02/14/89)
Steve Jobs was (again) barraged with comments about the source code issue at last week's NeXT developer's camp. As one of the more vocal barragers, I'll try to summarize what he said. I will refrain from any editorial comment, other than noting that he seemed to be speaking off the cuff and/or thinking out loud as opposed to stating a policy. I am writing from memory, so there is a non-zero possibility that my own prejudiced interpretation of what Jobs said may show through: . NeXT plans to announce a source code policy soon, perhaps this week. . NeXT does not plan to distribute all source code, but rather some subset that seems to encompass what everybody cares about. . Source code distribution will be limited to small organizations within universities that have a demonstrated need for their "research". . There will be no charge for source code. Jobs made some comment to the effect that if university groups need certain source for their research NeXT will give it to them. . NeXT will *not* distribute source code to a university or company as a whole, but rather to the small group inside it that "needs" it. . That small group may *not* distribute that source OR BINARIES GENERATED FROM THAT SOURCE (I initially assumed this was a slip, but Jobs confirmed this is what he means) to any other NeXT systems on campus. The only exceptions will be made on a case-by-case, program-by-program basis by NeXT. The stated purpose was to abate a problem in which some individual or group changes program X on all NeXT's on campus which breaks vendor program Y causing a different individual or group on campus to complain to vendor Y bogusly. I hope I have repeated what Jobs said fairly.
gerrit@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Gerrit Huizenga) (02/14/89)
In article <881@blake.acs.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: >. NeXT plans to announce a source code policy soon, perhaps this week. I don't believe that Steve Jobs actually committed to announcing the policy soon. It has been one of the major topics of internal discussion of late, and it isn't clear that a resolution was imminent, although one should be forthcoming. NeXT's biggest concern is that of their developers. The developers don't want to worry about non-conforming systems which have been literally hacked at by someone going through root puberty. I believe that from talking to Steve Jobs at the camp, the guidelines that Mark has mentioned will be the general rule, but some deviation will be possible. Also, this Steve suggested that this was the direction he felt the internal source discussions were taking. It may change before the policy becomes "official". >. NeXT does not plan to distribute all source code, but rather some > subset that seems to encompass what everybody cares about. Clarification: there is some source that NeXT does not have the rights to redistribute. I believe one of these is the source to the Objective C compiler. However, I think they are open to releasing source to any subset which they own if there is a real need. Jobs feels that source should be "free" - which probably means available for the cost of distributing it. Sources will probably be released in small packages, such as the source to a single objective C class if really needed, rather than the source to all of the NeXT developed classes. There was some small talk about the source to Mach being more accessible, particularly in the Mach source which includes such things as NeXT device drivers I would guess. >. Source code distribution will be limited to small organizations within > universities that have a demonstrated need for their "research". However, campus support centers may be able to get portions of the source code to implement local required modifications (such as security enhancements) that can be installed on all local machines. Again, the largest concern here is that standard products will still be able to run without modification or special considerations. Keep in mind that the policy is not cast in stone and this is essentially a foreshadowing of what might come to pass. I think that *rational* arguments (and there have been several here) are going to have more effect that some of the ranting and raving. NeXT is aware of the sore spot from both the University side and from the developers side. I think with well reasoned comments and requests, the policy can be refined to make it acceptable to both developers and University people. Gerrit Huizenga, Purdue University Computing Center