Mail Archives: opendos/1997/09/19/23:18:46
tbird AT caldera DOT com said:
> 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:
Tim, you know that when you first popped up on the FreeDOS mailing last
year we spoke about cooperation between the two efforts. I know that
many FreeDOS developers, including myself, felt that a joint effort
between Caldera and the FreeDOS group would have yielded many benefits
for both. In fact, I almost approached Brian at UNIX expo last year on
exactly this topic. Unfortunately, neither you nor Caldera ever
responded either agreeing or dismissing such an alliance. From this
action, I can only interpret that Caldera was simply not interested.
IMHO, lack of GPL has always been a major detractor for OpenDOS. That's
why I continued with FreeDOS. It was the major reason behind the
decision not contribute to your company's product for many of us in the
FreeDOS community. Frankly, if anything I contribute can be licensed at
a profit by Caldera, it is, in my opinion, a one way agreement that
violates the spirit of free software and my rights as an author. I know
this is flame bait, but it is my opinion that the software author should
also be compensated when his or her contribution is licensed for profit
by another party. It is, unfortunately, Caldera's loss. For example,
I've examined the kernel sources closely and know exactly what needs to
be done to allow them to be built by masm-compatible tools. However, I
will not make those changes because I do not want this new source code
to be sold by Caldera. I would, however, gladly make the changes if the
source and corresponding binaries are redistributed under the terms of
GPL.
Last week, I defended Caldera because I did carefully read the
announcements, followed OpenDOS developments and felt that the demands
were unjust. This week, I find that I must point out that Caldera's
effort was not altruistic by any stretch of the imagination. The
release of OpenDOS was strictly a commercial venture. I don't know what
went on within Caldera, but as an outside observer it would appear to me
that the release of the binaries, limited source and restrictive license
was strictly a teaser to entice commercial users to license the product
from Caldera.
With respect to releasing the kernel being of limited use, I can tell
you and Caldera that it has been my personal experience that kernel work
attracts very, very few contributors. It would have been far more if
the entire utility set had been available. This is my observation as
the FreeDOS kernel developer and I think that the FreeDOS coordinator
would agree with me. I think that Brian and his marketing people should
carefully consider what source was released before judging the
usefulness of that release and the benefits gained from that release.
Their decision, in my opinion, shows poor marketing judgement and a
general misunderstanding of the market.
As an aside, FreeDOS is not and was never in competition with OpenDOS.
My contribution of over 32000 NCSL lines of code to FreeDOS was an
effort to help people who wanted a freely redistributable dos-like OS
achieve their goal. My work preceded the OpenDOS release by years and
was never meant to compete with Caldera. I continue to support the
16-bit effort on a limited basis as well as follow OpenDOS while I
develop a new 32-bit version of the kernel. I would be glad to
contribute to OpenDOS as well when a GPL version is released.
> - 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).
Tim, don't complain that Caldera hasn't received useful input. By this
statement, you are implying that Caldera expected to profit from the
release of the source code by receiving "useful input" free of charge.
Sorry, but it seems to me that Caldera "wants to have its cake and eat
it too."
Pat
--
+--------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Pat Villani | Email: patv AT iop DOT com |
| | Amateur call: WB2GBF |
+--------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, doctor, and I'm happy to |
| state I finally won out over it. -- Elwood P. Dowd |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
- Raw text -