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: from "Mike A. Harris" at Sep 17, 97 03:37:34 pm Content-Type: text Precedence: bulk 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