From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:38:06 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <9211150337.AA12188@PCS.CNU.EDU> "Coherent operating system" <COHERENT@indycms.bitnet> writes:
>
>	I think RMS is nuts.  I am a programmer and I'll be doggone if I want
>everybody to write software for free!  Its OK for some things.  I mean, the
>OS for your computer should come with it.  The GNU Public License is crazy too.
>It doesn't make any sense.  Stallman says how he hates all the license crap
>that companies like Microsoft puts out and then he goes and makes up a
>license that is just as restrictive and hard to understand.

Well, RMS doesn't write software for free.  And there's nothing to say
that you can't port GNU software to an OS and charge money for it.  The
computer user has the choice of getting the GNU sources and porting them,
or paying someone else for a supported port.

The worst thing about the GNU license and the GNU library license are that
they have not been challenged in court, so it isn't perfectly clear just
how binding they are.

>	Suppose I want to write a program that just displays a message.
>Maybe I want the message to be encoded just for fun.  Its different each
>time or something like that.  A lot of times, I just do not want to
>distribute source code.  Many times, distributing code causes problems
>because people modify it out of control and it dies because of that.  Or,
>what if I want to write the program by myself and don't want someone else
>to.  There are some programs I have written that were like personal works
>to me (or possibly a small group of friends) and I feel like its not as
>special if I give the code to everybody.  There are other examples but I
>think you get the idea.  The bottom line is that the GNU license is not
>just restrictive to those who want to sell software.  Its just as bad to
>me as all those stupid copyright messages that clutter up dox and screens
>and the ridiculous limitations people place on code and stuff.

So don't distribute code that contains GNU library code or output from
BISON.  The license on GCC doesn't cover binaries compiled with GCC.  If
you develop code using GCC, you don't have to distribute the sources.

>	Why not modify the GNU PL so that you aren't required to
>always put out source or give it away.  There is nothing wrong with
>charging for software, its just that too much is charged now.

Don't distribute code with the GNU PL.

>	What I really want is to be able to write code without having
>to worry about issues that have nothing to do with writing code!

You can.

>	Having said all that, I'm enough of an idealist to see what
>Stallman wants.  Given that I don't plan to write commercial software,
>and I generally hate the way it is sold/licensed etc., I can see his
>ideas working.  Most programmers work at companies generating code for
>research and operations (or the poor codeheads that do database maintenance
>on COBOL systems...<ick>).  Programmer's would still have jobs and most
>if not all software would be free.  Programmer's would probably become
>fewer in this kind of world so our salary's might increase.  Killing off
>restrictive copyrights and trade secret stuff would allow us to make
>nice applications for free so end-users would have really great software
>and we'd all be so happy...<#undef sarcasm>
>
>	Sometimes I just don't know.  The rise of off-the-shelf software
>use in the country and the fact that it might be neat to write some code
>and get a little money from it cloud the issue.
>
>	I like your ideas about UNIX.  Here is my want list...
>
>1) smaller, simpler kernel

UNIX V7.

>2) built-in graphics support

X11 or MGR.

>3) a single user mode that can run without ttys (what for with no other users?)

UNIX is a multiuser operating system.  How would you use modems or serial
printers?

>4) fast response for games (hey, games sell computers!)

Get an Amiga.

>5) A better graphics system than X.  X is too big, tries to do to much, and is
>   does everything against the rules of a well-done graphics system.  I like
>   it OK as far as using it goes, its just that it is too much.  MIT has been
>   saying they will make it small, remove redundancy, shink the net stuff,
>   and other things for awhile.  Meanwhile it seems to get bigger.  Then,
>   Sun makes this Open Windows stuff which slows things down even more.

Dump Motif and right something new.

>6) A simplification of administration.  File permissions are a real big
>   problem for most users.  Perhaps a new file system that would be real
>   simple, like DOS but with long filenames and extended attributes.  The
>   kernel would still support a standard FS but if you don't need it...

Right.  Turn UNIX into DOSIX.  Bleah!

>7) Ability to choose more than one scheduler.  The basic UNIX scheduler is
>   geared toward multiple, interactive users.  That isn't what you need if
>   you are running Mathematica on your machine.  Perhaps a more dynamic
>   scheduling system or just different ones like I said.

They exist.

>8) AT&T actually wrote very little of current-day UNIX.  People from all
>   over the world wrote most of it and I believe it is no longer theirs.
>   Users should get together and petition Uncle Sam to kill the license
>   and set up a standardization group (I know, they are pure hell but
>   AT&T really screwed up with SVR4...).  That might not work but sometimes
>   I just can't stand AT&T.

All the code that is in AT&T is theirs under the law.  There are an awful lot
of people who are extremely pleased with SVR4.

>Gosh, what a long message.  Anyway, feel free to post this to the net, I
>probably should have anyway to generate some discussion...


In the Linux and BSD groups, I've seen a lot of new users who want to turn
UNIX into MSDOS.  I will fight to keep this from happening.  I have a decade
of experience with UNIX, and think it is the best OS that I ever used.  I used
to have a PC/XT running MSDOS, and have written diagnostics for dedicated
applications running on MSDOS machines to exercise and test commodity hardware
in a factory setting.  I am about as interested in using DOS as I would be in
programming on punched cards.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP