From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: distributing linux on floppies
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 06:44:18 GMT

Look, I don't want to deal with the religious war any more, so I won't.

1)	Someone asked why people weren't selling 386BSD and Linux for $50.

2)	I did a simple risk-assessment and materials/labor costing.

3)	One tiny element of risk was deemed to be the wording of GPL with
	regard to the putative publisher using the standard software
	distribution channels.

4)	This was condemnded as an attack on FSF, one of many organizations
	distributing under GPL, and by no means the only one.

5)	This was also condemned this as an attack on the GPL concept.

6)	Individuals demanded I justify why I assigned a risk to GPL distributed
	software.

7)	I justified the assesment based on the somewhat unclear wording of
	several sections of the GPL, and suggested a possible replacement,
	and went on to clarify what a real lawyer (as opposed to a net lawyer)
	found lacking from the perspective of potential distributor.  At no
	time did I attack the spirit of the GPL, only the wording.

8)	No doubt the software authors would agree to the wording changes if
	contacted personally for distribution priviledges, since they apply
	to clarification of the spirit of the GPL rather than to a change in
	it.

I believe I correctly identified the price range the materials and manufacturing
would fall in.

I also believe I identified the majority of risks to be considered from a
*business perspective*, even the very small one of misinterpretation of the
GPL; as I have stated before, this risk is eliminated by componenting the
software and not charging for it at all, or by strengthening the wording of
the GPL to better reflect it's spirit, leaving no room for any adverse
interpretations.  Since the original authors still own code under GPL, there
is nothing preventing a seperate negotiation for distribution rights.

Obviously, the reason companies aren't selling 386BSD right now is the
greatest risk facing a potential distributor, which we all agree is AT&T.  None
of us wants to be in BSDI's shoes.  BSDI has bravely accepted this risk and
the attentive lawsuit as part of the risk of their doing business, and they
have no doubt priced accordingly.

The idea that GPL licensing on an easily isolated component is preventing the
sale of 386BSD is laughable, as is whether the end price is of the product on
CD's is +/- $20, given that the majority of sales wouldn't even be on CD ROM
if 386BSD follows the Interactive/SCO distribution model, and this cost is
still below that of a floppy distribution by at least $30.

I personally dislike the GPL, but *not* on the basis of anything I see as an
unmanageble risk.  Everyone is entitled to their religion; mine simply does not
include the concept of "copyleft".  I don't believe that this has been brought
into the discussion when stating what I believe to be a business perspective.
I have a not inconsiderable amount of experience with day to day operations in
a small software company, and would probably be taking the same risks BSDI has
taken if I had their backing and staff.

It's time to stop muddying the real issues with religion and get back on track.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
					terry_lambert@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.