home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!taronga!peter
- From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
- Subject: Re: Restrictions on 'free' UNIX / 386BSD (Re: selling 386BSD)
- Message-ID: <WLEIPPE@taronga.com>
- Organization: Taronga Park BBS
- References: <PHR.92Aug15214245@soda.berkeley.edu> <YSDIBS4@taronga.com> <PHR.92Aug16224207@soda.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 10:54:59 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <PHR.92Aug16224207@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
- > OK, I missed one aspect of this in my previous article. There is a large
- > category of people who now benefit from GCC who would not be able to
- > benefit from a GPL-covered 386BSD. Next, Sun (In Solaris 2), and I believe
- > MIPS ship GCC with their products, in some cases as the primary compilers.
- > This sort of distribution is not practical for an operating system.
-
- >Why is it practical for compilers and not OS's?
-
- Because the compiler distribution is subsidised by the OS distribution. If
- the OS itself has no protection against unsupported copying, what is there
- to subsidise it?
-
- >In the old days, OS's came with source code, and users and system
- >maintainers benefited greatly from this.
-
- In the old days, OSes were subsidised by hardware sales and rental. In fact,
- OSes were only provided to support hardware sales. That's not true any more:
- even for proprietary systems, operating systems are products in their own
- right. And for clonable machines (Sparc, MIPS, x86) the O/S has to be a
- profit center in its own right.
-
- Also, as BSDI has demonstrated, "coming with source code" and "free" are in
- no way synonymous.
- --
- `-_-'
- Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U`
-
- Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032
-