pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (09/02/90)
On 31 Aug 90 20:24:33 GMT I wrote: pcg> On 30 Aug 90 03:23:04 GMT, richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) said: richard> Guessing the optimal price is perhaps a marketeers most richard> difficult job. But there's always the possibility that if you richard> reduce your price by 50% you'll increase your sales by 200%. richard> With no way to prove it except to try it. pcg> It is my impression is that they are trying very hard to limit pcg> sales, and thus will strive to keep the price as high as they can. pcg> In case this sounds crazy to you, sales must be backed by capital; pcg> if you are short of capital, the best way to increase absolute net pcg> income is not to increase sales, but price; this will reduce sales pcg> and thus the demand for capital. Just to make sure that everybody understands (somebody that wrote me somewhat obnoxiously by e-mail did not): this is about *UNIT* sales. This was _very_ clear from Richard Foulk's comments, that indicated a tradeoff between unit sales and price (in his example sales revenue would grow 50% -- units sales grow to 3 times the original at half the price). richard> It is my distinct impression that ISC and SCO are erroring on richard> the high side. Given that it may be possible to get the same sales *revenue* selling many units at a low price (higher market share) or less units at a high price (lower market share) this implies that the former is always preferable -- this is not so, if you are constrained by capital. There may be other reasons, but I have (let me repeat myself) the impression that ISC are already badly strained by market growth... -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (09/03/90)
In article <PCG.90Aug31212433@athene.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >It is my impression is that they are trying very hard to limit sales, >and thus will strive to keep the price as high as they can. > >In case this sounds crazy to you, sales must be backed by capital; if >you are short of capital, the best way to increase absolute net income >is not to increase sales, but price; this will reduce sales and thus the >demand for capital. For manufacturing companies this is counteracted by The only thing wrong with this is the capital cost of delivering a copy of the OS is very small. The big dollar cost items in the software field are fixed cost items (you only have one development effort reguardless of the number of copies of a given revision you sell, you only have a single quality control costing element, etc.) that must be recovered over a given number of copies of the software. >This is also true for software companies, especially those, like SCO and >ISC, which are in market that is growing very fast on its own on the >demand side, and where the supply of capital, in the form of competent >system programmers, is very scarce. But no matter how many copies of the final product they sell, they won't save on the required software development costs (i.e. that cost is fixed). ISC and SCO have the following question: If my development effort has cost me $5 million and I expect to sell X copies of the OS, How much must I charge for the OS in order to make back that investement plus a bit of profits. Now the X is a real big question because the larger the amount that ISC tries to get per copy the lower X will be, and vice-versa. -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
bruce@segue.segue.com (Bruce Adler) (09/04/90)
Repeat the following 1,000 times: Costing is not pricing After that, if you still don't understand it's meaning try taking a beginning class in marketing. -- bruce@segue.com ism.isc.com!segue!bruce aero.org!segue!bruce
dvv@hq.demos.su (Dmitry V. Volodin) (09/05/90)
In article <3335@segue.segue.com> bruce@segue.segue.com (Bruce Adler) writes: >Repeat the following 1,000 times: > > Costing is not pricing > >After that, if you still don't understand it's meaning try taking >a beginning class in marketing. >-- Perfectly true. 73 years of socialism in this country prove the fact. >bruce@segue.com >ism.isc.com!segue!bruce >aero.org!segue!bruce -- Dmitry V. Volodin | internet: <dvv@hq.demos.su> | or <dvv%hq.demos.su@fuug.fi> | Motto coming soon. uucp: ...!uunet!fuug!demos!dvv |
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (09/07/90)
In article <1990Sep02.233606.12859@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: > The only thing wrong with this is the capital cost of delivering a copy > of the OS is very small. You forgot support. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
stevewa@upvax.UUCP (Steve Ward) (09/08/90)
In article <EAQ5R_3@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Sep02.233606.12859@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: >> The only thing wrong with this is the capital cost of delivering a copy >> of the OS is very small. > >You forgot support. But now Interactive is charging extra for support. I think people would be less upset about the cost of the various unix products if they could be assured of adequate support, upgrade policy, and the like. People are used to getting upgrades for little more than distribution costs (esp. in acedemia) and now companies are starting to "unbundle" this and proper product support, without lowering the cost of the package. People don't like having to pay for something they used to getfree. Steve -- | Steve Ward Jr. appears courtesy of | stevewa@upvax.UUCP | | Univ. of Portland, Portland, OR | !tektronix!upvax!stevewa | | (insert disclaimer here) | upvax!stevewa@tektronix.TEK.COM | | --If all else fails, try: tektronix.TEK.COM!upvax!stevewa@uunet.uu.net |
cgwst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Gray Watson) (09/08/90)
I hope I haven't missed the boat with this discussion. *I* am waiting for GNU to put out an entirely freeware release of their Unix. I have heard that they have stopped development on their own because MACH is going to become freeware. When this hits the streets with i386 and i486 patches to it, look out!!! Free Unix with *SOURCE* here we come. gray p.s. No wonder the Unix companies are trying to grab as much $$ as possible.
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (09/09/90)
*sigh* Once again... In article <36054@unix.cis.pitt.edu> gray@med.pitt.edu (Gray Watson) writes: >*I* am waiting for GNU to put out an entirely freeware release of their >Unix. I have heard that they have stopped development on their own because >MACH is going to become freeware. You heard wrong. So far, the FSF (not GNU) has not started development of an OS. They *are* waiting for Mach (not MACH) to be freely available, but that depends on a few things (such as the DoD and/or the DoC, and CMU having it ready soon enough for them); if there are too many problems, they will go with another system, or, *worst case* write their own kernel. >When this hits the streets with i386 and i486 patches to it, look out!!! >Free Unix with *SOURCE* here we come. Right. First of all, Mach is not UNIX(tm). It currently looks a lot like BSD, but that's because it also has Berkeley (and, therefore, AT&T) source code in it. When that code is removed (a la Mach 3.0), the non-free code is gone, but so is the compatability. One of the first things that the FSF would have to do with Mach is write a set of unix-compatable library routines. And it's *still* not going to binary-compatable. Which means a *lot* for the '386 (and, of course, '486) world. Nor will it run on a '286. Nor will it run DOS code. More importantly: nor will the FSF hand-hold customers, or put in a lot of work, so that non-wizardly people can install it. >p.s. No wonder the Unix companies are trying to grab as much $$ as possible. Right. First of all, see the reasons above. Second of all, *you* try selling UNIX(tm) cheaply. uPort tried it, and they had to claim Chapter 11. That's *bankrupt*. They're back, now (and bigger and better than ever, as the commercials for _Robocop II_ proclaimed 8-)), and trying again. My best wishes to them. Thirdly, in reply to the attempted slur: guess what: almost every company in existance tries to "grab as much $$ as possible." This is known as attempting to make a profit. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "let's face it, finding yourself dead is one seanf@sco.COM | of life's more difficult moments." uunet!sco!seanf | -- Mark Leeper, reviewing _Ghost_ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
palowoda@fiver (Bob Palowoda) (09/09/90)
From article <1990Sep9.012658.23353@sco.COM>, by seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan): > *sigh* Once again... >>p.s. No wonder the Unix companies are trying to grab as much $$ as possible. > > Thirdly, in reply to the attempted slur: guess what: almost every company > in existance tries to "grab as much $$ as possible." This is known as > attempting to make a profit. I don't know Sean, sounds like something some sort of justification I used to hear when going to high when kids would explain to each other why they should use drugs. What is amazeing is all the talk about how what and why different versions of UNIX are more expensive than each other when the fact is only very few people really know what the answer is. Most likely these are the companies accountants and presidents. I'm sure we will never hear from them makeing statements on the net about price justification. It is interesting that you say "almost every company". ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda palowoda@fiver | *Home of Fiver BBS* Home {sun}!ys2!fiver!palowoda | 415-623-8809 1200/2400 {pacbell}!indetech!fiver!palowoda | An XBBS System Work {sun,pyramid,decwrl}!megatest!palowoda| 415-623-8806 1200/2400/19.2k TB+
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (09/10/90)
>> The only thing wrong with this is the capital cost of delivering a copy >> of the OS is very small. > >You forgot support. I thought we were talking about ISC. What support? half a :-) -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
carroll@m.cs.uiuc.edu (09/10/90)
/* Written 4:19 pm Sep 7, 1990 by cgwst@unix.cis.pitt.edu in m.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.unix.i386 */ /* ---------- "Re: OS costs" ---------- */ [ ... ] MACH is going to become freeware. /* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.unix.i386 */ I find this difficult to believe, since currently MACH requires both a Berkeley and an AT&T source license. (At least, that's the word from the CMU MACH people).
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (09/12/90)
In article <70400021@m.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >/* Written 4:19 pm Sep 7, 1990 by cgwst@unix.cis.pitt.edu in m.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.unix.i386 */ >/* ---------- "Re: OS costs" ---------- */ >[ ... ] MACH is going to become freeware. >/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.unix.i386 */ >I find this difficult to believe, since currently MACH requires both a >Berkeley and an AT&T source license. (At least, that's the word from the CMU >MACH people). Believe it.. CMU's plan is to do whatever they can to free it from the little snippets of AT&T and Berkeley code that are left. It's quite doable, just takes some effort and time is all. -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <- <- Sign me up for one "I survived Jaka's Story" T-shirt!
shore@mtxinu.COM (Melinda Shore) (09/12/90)
In article <70400021@m.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > Written 4:19 pm Sep 7, 1990 by cgwst@unix.cis.pitt.edu in m.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.unix.i386 >>[ ... ] MACH is going to become freeware. >I find this difficult to believe, since currently MACH requires both a >Berkeley and an AT&T source license. (At least, that's the word from the CMU >MACH people). This is a very widely held misconception. The Mach 3.0 microkernel will be free of AT&T code, but it can't become available without a license until it's been certified (don't ask). The process is apparently somewhat expensive and certainly time-consuming, so no one is going to start until the code is finished. Also, only the kernel is going to be free. Most utility programs, shells, compilers, and so on are probably going to be available through the FSF or freeware, but you'll still need to get drivers, filesystems, etc. from some place. It's not a small job. Back to licensing: for a Mach 2.5 source distribution you need AT&T, Berkeley, Sun NFS, IBM, and Ultrix licenses, among others. We've packaged things up so that you can get all your licenses except the AT&T SysVr2 license through us. -- Melinda Shore shore@mtxinu.com mt Xinu ..!uunet!mtxinu.com!shore
rick@pcrat.uucp (Rick Richardson) (09/12/90)
In article <1114@upvax.UUCP> stevewa@upvax.UUCP (Steve Ward) writes: >>> The only thing wrong with this is the capital cost of delivering a copy >>> of the OS is very small. >>You forgot support. >But now Interactive is charging extra for support. >People don't like having to pay for something they used to getfree. But large companies do like it, or so they say. A recent PC magazine article by Jim Seymour discusses this issue. Support is being unbundled by many (most?) companies so that users who don't need support or who have in-house support departments won't have to pay for something they don't use. For a long time now, there has been a 'support subsidy' paid for (but not used by) the Fortune 500 companies. Unbundle support and the subsidy disappears. This makes Fortune 500 companies happy, and the small company unhappy. We've got a lot of small companies here. In theory, support prices are now supposed to reflect actual costs plus a profit, and the product alone should cost less. Since vendors seem to always make these changes when issuing a new, uncomparable release of something, its hard to say if the software ever really gets cheaper. I doubt it. Also, this unbundling of support is a fairly recent thing within the PC marketplace, where products are well established and are high volume. One has to wonder if the UNIX marketplace is premature in following this lead at this time. -Rick -- Rick Richardson | Looking for FAX software for UNIX/386 ??? Ask About: |Mention PC Research,Inc.| FaxiX - UNIX Facsimile System (tm) |FAX# for uunet!pcrat!rick| FaxJet - HP LJ PCL to FAX (Send WP,Word,Pagemaker...)|Sample (201) 389-8963 | JetRoff - troff postprocessor for HP LaserJet and FAX|Output
src@scuzzy.mbx.sub.org (Heiko Blume) (09/12/90)
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes: >You heard wrong. So far, the FSF (not GNU) has not started development of >an OS. They *are* waiting for Mach (not MACH) to be freely available, but >that depends on a few things (such as the DoD and/or the DoC, and CMU having >it ready soon enough for them); if there are too many problems, they will go >with another system, or, *worst case* write their own kernel. the GNU Bulletin from June says a free version should be available this year. if they can't get Mach they want to use MIT's TRIX or Berkley's Sprite. (possibly Sprite will be it, then, the Bulletin says it's "at about the same architectural level as BSD UNIX".) btw: why should mach fall under any export restrictions ??? this kind of protectionism makes me sick. >>When this hits the streets with i386 and i486 patches to it, look out!!! >>Free Unix with *SOURCE* here we come. YEAH! the ratio of bug-fixes per month will be very interesting! >Right. First of all, Mach is not UNIX(tm). It currently looks a lot like >BSD, but that's because it also has Berkeley (and, therefore, AT&T) source >code in it. When that code is removed (a la Mach 3.0), the non-free code is >gone, but so is the compatability. One of the first things that the FSF >would have to do with Mach is write a set of unix-compatable library >routines. they are currently *replacing* the at&t/bsd code, *not* removing. code that can't be replaced fast enough will be placed in user processes that can be left out of the distribution. the c library from GNU is said to be nearly completed. they also want to use the sprite distributed file system, because it's kind of hard to write a BSD fs from scratch... >And it's *still* not going to binary-compatable. Which means a *lot* for >the '386 (and, of course, '486) world. Nor will it run on a '286. Nor will >it run DOS code. well, i don't have any facts about that. however, why should it be impossible to run DOS stuff? as far as i understand it vp/ix loads DOS images, runs them, and maps the i/o calls to something else, right? where's the problem? if i can run apple ][ programs given the right hack, i can run DOS programs given the right hack. (vp/ix *is* a hack :-) apart from that, who cares? all those RISC architectures popping up are also binary-compatible to nothing. that didn't stop the companies from selling these machines. also binary-compatible doesn't mean the software works, right ? ('gee, this program expects to use /usr/spool/uucp/locks! my lock dir is somewhere else!'.) >More importantly: nor will the FSF hand-hold customers, or put in a lot of >work, so that non-wizardly people can install it. so what? many people put in a lot of work to make FSF programs better, in the gnu groups they just don't post bug reports, they post *fixes* too! also, 'non-wizardly people' are mostly not able to install a full unix, not to speak of adminstrating the thing. to get the hand-holding call Cygnus Support (info@cygnus.com), they'll do it. >>p.s. No wonder the Unix companies are trying to grab as much $$ as possible. sure, but they'll never get as much people 'working' for them as the FSF, not to speak of paying them.
cgwst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Gray Watson) (09/15/90)
In article <70400021@m.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >[ ... ] MACH is going to become freeware. >/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.unix.i386 */ >I find this difficult to believe, since currently MACH requires both a >Berkeley and an AT&T source license. (At least, that's the word from the CMU >MACH people). * RUMORS RUMORS * I hear that MACH *3.0* will be freeware. At this point MACH contains the Andrew file system which is licensed (I don't think it needs an AT&T or BSD license though). MACH 3.0 will include a PD competitor to Andrew whose name I am forgetting. GNU and MACH people are working on the problems with the licensing right now but GNU has officially dropped devlopment on their kernel because of the MACH prospects. Free UNIX here we come. gray
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (09/16/90)
src@scuzzy.mbx.sub.org (Heiko Blume) writes: > the GNU Bulletin from June says a free version should be available this year. > if they can't get Mach they want to use MIT's TRIX or Berkley's Sprite. Sorry for the boundless pessimism about FSF (for which I have some respect) but the statement in the 6/90 GNU's Bulletin is approximately the same as the statement in the 6/88 GNU's Bulletin. In two years, their progress, to a first approximation, has been zero. They're working on stuff other than the OS. They're waiting for someone else to produce something they can use. I wish them well (sincerely!) but I hold out no hope until I see some real movement. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...I'm not cynical - just experienced.
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (09/17/90)
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: [tracing back a couple levels] > > >[ ... ] MACH is going to become freeware. > >...I find this difficult to believe, since currently MACH requires both a > >Berkeley and an AT&T source license... ... > Believe it.. > > CMU's plan is to do whatever they can to free it from the little snippets > of AT&T and Berkeley code that are left. What is the "it" that is being freed? If you mean the Mach kernel, you're right, and for the 3.0 kernel it might even be right that there are just "snippets" of AT&T and BSD code left. But what about the OS interface and all the libraries and applications? In other words, suppose that you *did* have a completely free Mach kernel...now what about the remaining 99% of what it takes to make a usable system? (99% is not an exaggeration. It's probably low.) At the least, any module containing AT&T code has to be rewritten from scratch. This is NOT trivial, and there's more than "snippets" of code to be dealt with here. This keeps coming up. The important thing to keep in mind is that a freed kernel--especially a minimal kernel like the Mach goal--is *not* of much use by itself. Freeing the rest of the system is a gigantic task. For some comparison, Berkeley says they've got things slightly more than half freed. (They claimed "55%" in Anaheim). Sure...it can be done; it probably will be eventually. But the "free UNIX-like system" is *not* just around the corner. It won't happen in '90; it probably won't happen in '91 either. Speaking of Berkeley, could someone (David, perhaps, since you said it?:-) explain why it would be desirable to free the code from Berkeley licensing? The BSD license is about as cheap and un-restrictive as they come; it's the next best thing to PD. Where possible, they've released pieces of code that aren't subject to AT&T license; in any case, you get the code with little more than a charge for media/copying, and a license that says little more than "leave our copyright on, acknowledge us, don't hold us responsible, now go have fun with it." If CMU is trying to make a system generally available, I think they'd be foolish to be at cross purposes with Berkeley. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...I'm not cynical - just experienced.
vixie@wrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) (09/17/90)
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
# But what about the OS interface and
# all the libraries and applications? In other words, suppose that you *did*
# have a completely free Mach kernel...now what about the remaining 99% of
# what it takes to make a usable system? (99% is not an exaggeration. It's
# probably low.)
Is there something outside the kernel that you want that isn't available
from GNU or somewhere in the PD? GNU has the fileutils (rm, ls, and so on)
plus bash plus awk plus grep plus emacs; I use RCS so I don't need SCCS (RCS
is roughly PD); all my network utilities and libraries are from Berkeley.
I guess we've got some work on libc, but I think there's already a free libm.
Just what things do you want that you can't already get from !ATT ?
--
Paul Vixie
DEC Western Research Lab <vixie@wrl.dec.com>
Palo Alto, California ...!decwrl!vixiehart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (Michael Hart) (09/19/90)
In <1990Sep16.224644.28322@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >[tracing back a couple levels] >Speaking of Berkeley, could someone (David, perhaps, since you said it?:-) > [stuff obviously deleted].......... >explain why it would be desirable to free the code from Berkeley licensing? >The BSD license is about as cheap and un-restrictive as they come; it's the >next best thing to PD. Where possible, they've released pieces of code that >aren't subject to AT&T license; in any case, you get the code with little >more than a charge for media/copying, and a license that says little more >than "leave our copyright on, acknowledge us, don't hold us responsible, >now go have fun with it." If CMU is trying to make a system generally >available, I think they'd be foolish to be at cross purposes with Berkeley. >-- >Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 > ...I'm not cynical - just experienced. I'm a relative newcomer to this wonderful, weird thing called Unix(tm):-) Do I read the above correctly re: BSD licenses? Can anyone (or almost anyone) get a BSD license for source code? I thought it was much more restrictive. Anyone have the straight poop on this, and care to share it??? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael G. Hart hart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil / mhart@dtrc.dt.navy.mil DTRC/DoD | "Wherever you go, there you are."- me DISCLAIMER: If you want the Navy's opinion, talk to Secretary Cheney.
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (09/19/90)
In <hart.653741863@blackjack> hart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (Michael Hart) writes: >Do I read the above correctly re: BSD licenses? Can anyone (or almost anyone) >get a BSD license for source code? I thought it was much more restrictive. > >Anyone have the straight poop on this, and care to share it??? Much of the BSD code is derived from ATT code, and much of it is not; at this point it's about 60/40 or 40/60, depending on how you count things (by line, by executable name, by filename, etc.) Up until roughly three years ago, the BSD folks did not have the time/resources/desire to cleanly mark the split. They treated everything as if it were derived from ATT code, so that in order to legally have a copy of the BSD code, you had to prove that you were allowed to have a copy of ATT code. Proving you're allowed meant having a source license. An ATT source license costs a few thousand (educational discounts for some versions) up to nearly a hundred thousand (commercial redistribution for recent SystemV releases) dollars. A BSD license, once you get the right ATT license, costs around a grand. The code base BSD used is called "Unix 32/V" an old pre-SysV predecessor, which is basically Version7 ported to a 32-bit virtual memory computer. I don't think ATT will sell you a license for anything other than SystemV these days. About two years BSD took a chunk of their software that was free of ATT code and made it available; copies are available on uunet.uu.net, in the directory ~/bsd-sources. You'll find lots of utilities, a few random kernel files, such as all the networking code. Times, resources, and attitudes have changed greatly in the past few years. Nowadays, many major Unix (and Unix-like) software developers are very interested in making distributable versions of their source available. BSD has been leading the way; for 4.4 they will be selling a "detoxified" (no code from ATT in New Jersey) tape. It will be a long way from being a full system, but it's more than you'll find elsewhere, and the cost is cheap. The MACH folks will be stripping out ATT code (and perhaps BSD code, although that is probably just because they're not sure of which code is free and which is based on ATT's work) from their project and making it available. It will almost certainly have the pure MACH kernel, and probably some utilities, and perhaps the some version of the Unix emulation server. Again, this is not a full system. I don't know what term MACH uses for their redistributable release. FSF, as they re-invent the wheel, is making everything available. They will eventually have a complete system, using code from other places wherever they can. Most of the utilities you need to do software development are available; all they're missing now is a kernel, more or less. FSF uses the term "freed" software to mean anything that you can pass around to someone else (that would cover most of what I'm describing here.) The contract they use is called the copyleft; it is as much an attempted agent of social change as it is a copyright. The Open Software Foundation is spending lots of time tracking these sorts of issues (I know, I get lots of calls from the person doing it :-). They are keeping track of the other work, more or less, and actively encouraging it by giving money and resources to the other three groups, as well as doing their own work. The term they use is "unencumbered," as in not bound by ATT licensing restrictions. Hope this helps. /r$ -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net. Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out.
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (09/20/90)
hart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (Michael Hart) writes: [I had written...] > >The BSD license is about as cheap and un-restrictive as they come; it's the > >next best thing to PD... > Do I read the above correctly re: BSD licenses? Can anyone (or almost anyone) > get a BSD license for source code? I thought it was much more restrictive. > > Anyone have the straight poop on this, and care to share it??? Sorry to have confused you. The BSD license _per_se_ is not very restrictive. The one catch (but it's a big one!) is that to get the BSD source for anything they'll send out that's got AT&T code in it, or is based on AT&T code, you need the (restrictive, expensive) AT&T source license. There are things like the networking code that are available under only the BSD license, but there isn't a complete system that way. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...Worst-case analysis must never begin with "No one would ever want..."
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (09/20/90)
In article <hart.653741863@blackjack> hart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (Michael Hart) writes: >I'm a relative newcomer to this wonderful, weird thing called Unix(tm):-) > >Do I read the above correctly re: BSD licenses? Can anyone (or almost anyone) >get a BSD license for source code? I thought it was much more restrictive. Yes, anyone can get a BSD license for very little cash. The problem is that you must have an AT&T license (for something like version 7 or so) to get the full BSD distribution. If you just want the BSD code (i.e. the stuff that has no AT&T stuff in it) you can get that for free from archive sites like uunet. -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
pavlov@canisius.UUCP (Greg Pavlov) (09/23/90)
In article <hart.653741863@blackjack>, hart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (Michael Hart) writes: > (quoting previous article) > >The BSD license is about as cheap and un-restrictive as they come; it's the > >next best thing to PD. Where possible, they've released pieces of code that > >aren't subject to AT&T license; in any case, you get the code with little > >more than a charge for media/copying, etc.......... but but but BSD told me that I needed the AT&T source license FIRST before getting the BSD license. And the former is NOT cheap, unless you are an officially-sanctioned "Educational Institution". (UNIX, after all, is a proprietary operating system....) greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny
shore@mtxinu.COM (Melinda Shore) (09/24/90)
In article <1990Sep17.060654.631@wrl.dec.com> vixie@wrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes: >Is there something outside the kernel that you want that isn't available >from GNU or somewhere in the PD? 1) Filesystem 2) Drivers 3) Math + other assorted library routines and that's just off the top of my head. I expect there's more. -- Melinda Shore shore@mtxinu.com mt Xinu ..!uunet!mtxinu.com!shore