From:	tbird AT caldera DOT com
Message-ID:	<19970919221921.32290.qmail@caldera.caldera.com>
Subject:	Re: For Sale or For Free: The Debate Continues
To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:19:21 -0600 (MDT)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970917150959.12102E-100000@capslock.com> from "Mike A. Harris" at Sep 17, 97 03:37:34 pm

Oh, I'll probably catch some heat for this, but I'd like to pipe
in with my own personal observations.  I do NOT represent Caldera
as a spokesperson, so you have to take what I say as coming from me
and not the corporate entity.

Some things are likely going to just fan the flames, but hopefully
I can explain some things.

> They DID say that utility sources would be forthcoming. Period.
> If they hadn't said that, then there would be NO "turn-about"
> now would there?  I treat a statement of pending source code
> release as a promise, and its negation is a broken promise.  You
> don't need to "believe" anything.  Read the released "promises"
> from Caldera and judge from that.  It's really very clear.
> 
> If they hadn't promised anything or led us to believe anything by
> using DIRECT statements, then we wouldn't be mad about all of
> this.
> 
> NOBODY was doing any assuming.  Just that we assumed Caldera
> would keep their word.

Here's some more info to confuse the whole situation.  When Caldera
purchased Novell DOS, it had every intention of releasing the full
source code, including utility source.  Except of course that exceptions
kept mounting as we moved forward.  We had to make special exceptions
for code we didn't own (like Personal NetWare), or for code that was
quagmired in a strange repository system, or decide what to do with
software that no one on the entire planet could reasonably recompile.

Be extremely careful with your wording.  An official spokesperson
for Caldera has made exactly one (and only one) announcement with
regard to DOS source code, and that is the press release, which
intentionally referred only to the kernel source code release.
I know this because it refers to the first quarter delivery date,
and everyone at Caldera knew (even the press release writers) that
we would only have kernel source available by then.

You have probably heard me (Tim Bird) talk about utility source coming
down the line eventually (I've stated before that I argued internally at
Caldera for a GPL release of utilities).  But I'm not a corporate
spokesperson.  It was not my intent to mislead anyone.  I actually
believed that we would eventually release the utility source under some
kind of license.  But there is no extant corporate statement which
constitutes a promise to do so (just my private ramblings, which no one at
Caldera has ever read).  On the basis that there was no official promise
of code release, and because the release of the kernel yielded no apparent
benefit, someone other than me (and who actually had the power to do so)
decided to suspend releasing the utility source.  This was largely done
(IN MY OPINION!!!) for two reasons:

	- some utility source exposes code which Caldera does not
	want to fall into the hands of competitors (no, not Microsoft
	or FreeDOS, or the hacker community - don't be silly.  Caldera
	has non-imaginary competitors in the embedded market that would
	like to see, for example, the source code to NWCDEX - I had
	one say exactly this to me at the Embedded Systems Conference
	trade show last year - Hard to imagine since NWCDEX has a 
	bad reputation for bugs, but true none-the-less.)

	- the expense of releasing the source was deemed to far outweigh
	the benefit.  When originally planned, the expense was estimated
	to be small, and the benefit great.  It is now expected that the
	expense would be great and the benefit small. Part of this view
	comes from the amount of useful input that has been received so
	far (sorry if it stings, but that's the perception).

I am not going to defend these reasons, because I disagree with them.
However, I understand them and respect the decision.  I am also
trying to do the best I can to help with OpenDOS despite my limited
spare time and with the tools and source I do have access to.

I honestly don't know where people have gotten the impression that
Caldera is trying to deny that the current state of affairs is something
different than originally intended.  John Williams said no such thing.
I have said no such thing (because I know it to be untrue), and everyone
else I know has been mute on the subject.  I saw one message from 
Erik Ratcliff (A Caldera support engineer) where he proferred his opinion
that the utilities didn't constitute part of the OS.  I disagree with
Erik - some utilities comprise essential components of the OS.  But his
point (IN MY OPINION!!!) was that a statement like "will release the
source code to OpenDOS" could very easily mean only the source code
to the kernel itself.  But I'm not positive that's what he meant.  Erik
speaks for Erik, I speak for me, and really only Bryan Sparks and a few
Marketing/Communications people speak for the company.

If I could apologize for the Company, I would.  But I can't.  I will
apologize for myself.  I am sorry to have written things last spring
which I believed would occur, but which probably will not.  TO THE
BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE (and I'm shouting that last part so no one will
misunderstand, and interpet the following as a Caldera pronouncement),
Caldera intended to release the utility source until only recently.

So... gripe all you want about the fact that Caldera has not apologized
for changing its mind.  But by some Calderan's interpretation of what we
actually promised (as a company), we have fulfilled our statements.  Since
I'm the only Caldera person who monitors this list, (that I'm aware of)
I'm not sure what good all the griping does you.  Except of course to
elicit this response, if it makes you happy.

Finally I should say that I understand the argument that people have
expended time and energy on OpenDOS, and that they feel they have wasted
it, and project bad feelings at Caldera for it.  I'm saddened by this, but
it's not the end of the world.  Many interesting things can be done with
what is available.   I would recommend that people continue to lobby in a
nice way for specific source pieces they are really interested in doing
something with.  Maybe someone from Caldera will change their mind.  The
negative reaction that occurred on opendos AT caldera DOT com was detrimental
rather than constructive at changing minds at Caldera.

Sorry for going on so long.

Have a nice day.

Tim Bird

- Raw text -