jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson) (01/31/89)
From: feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: NeXT concerns will be willing to purchase a source license. Steve Jobs said that our having source would make it more difficult for NeXT to provide support. Well, if NeXT doesn't provide source, there's a good chance that support won't be a problem, as we won't be purchasing NeXTs. This is the one point about the NeXT philosophy that bugs me. Source code will not be available because (supposedly) it would be more difficult for NeXT to provide patches/support when everyone has bastardized their kernels. There are probably legal issues here too (is Mach wholly public domain? Does NeXT want to ship source code for their proprietary products when they could conceivably be used on another Unix machine?). I'm not a big fan of the centralized, software-updates-via-cart-tape methodology for updating software since it means you have to wait... and wait ... and wait... AND WAIT for the latest software updates. Sun is notorious for not distributing patches on a timely basis... well no wonder... its EXPENSIVE shipping out those cart tapes and Sun is after all still a small, rapidly growing company. On the other hand NeXT can't rely on networks and user groups for distribution of patches to their code (ARPANet, NSFnet, Usenet, BITNET, ad nauseum) as a corporate policy. Neither can they afford to have irate customers calling because the latest patches didn't install properly on their machine's bastardized kernels. This policy, however, should not penalize those of us who wish to modify our kernels/applications and are willing to take our chances. If NeXT had a decent patch/revision control system then it might be possible to coordinate these changes with user modified code. My $0.00002. -- John T. Nelson UUCP: sun!sundc!potomac!jtn Advanced Decision Systems Internet: jtn@potomac.ads.com 1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611 "The only thing more useless than a Faberge' egg is a coffee table picture book about Faberge' eggs"
jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (02/01/89)
Any university buying into the NeXT deal should as an absolute minimum
insist on a software deposit agreement, so that NeXT is required to deposit
all sources with a neutral third party, to be released should NeXT cease
operations or cease supporting the product. This is a necessity when dealing
with a small company like NeXT. Ask anyone with an "orphan" machine.
Visualize your career as an academic administrator if you were
responsible for acquiring, say, a thousand machines that were orphaned when
the maker went under and there was no way to ever support the software.
John Nagleswerling@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ace Swerling) (02/03/89)
In hearing all this stuff about NeXT source code, I was reminded of the little episode with the NeXT browser on the Mac. For those of you who don't know about it, a programmer in the SF Bay area ported the Browser to the Mac and posted a limited version to the BMUG BBS. Steve Jobs called the guy a few days later and told him to can it. He said that if any company tries to copy the interface at some future time, he needs to be protected legally and that means that there can't be some unauthorized program running around. I guess this also applies to source. Steve wants to protect his legal rights and if he releases the code, he won't have any rights as far as look and feel go. Actually, I wrote him a note about the program and suggested that he give the guy rights to distribute it or have NeXT distribute it as a NeXT product. He blew me off, (said thanks for the idea) but I guess that shows he's not interested indoing anything that might remotely compromise his legal position. Disclaimer: I'm only a student here and who's interested in a student's opinion anyway? -Ace swerling@caen.engin.umich.edu
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (02/09/89)
In article <413c9e5f.17b76@puffin.engin.umich.edu> swerling@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ace Swerling) writes: >In hearing all this stuff about NeXT source code, I was reminded of the little >episode with the NeXT browser on the Mac. For those of you who don't know >about it, a programmer in the SF Bay area ported the Browser to the Mac and >posted a limited version to the BMUG BBS. Steve Jobs called the guy a few >days later and told him to can it. He said that if any company tries to copy >the interface at some future time, he needs to be protected legally and that >means that there can't be some unauthorized program running around. I guess >this also applies to source. Steve wants to protect his legal rights and if >he releases the code, he won't have any rights as far as look and feel go. >Actually, I wrote him a note about the program and suggested that he give the >guy rights to distribute it or have NeXT distribute it as a NeXT product. He >blew me off, (said thanks for the idea) but I guess that shows he's not >interested indoing anything that might remotely compromise his legal position. In other words he wants to pull another "Apple against the world" show like the Apple vs. Microsoft/HP suit, even though all the nExt interfaces are based on and borrow from previous programs, like the mac, openlook, sunview, xerox parc, browser programs available for many micros, etc, etc. (In other words, the nExt user interface, while it has some new features, and combines some older features not combined before, etc, it did _not_ spring full-fledged from the head of Jobs (or his company.)) -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup