O'pain Software Foundation: (2) Why is it better than AT&T?

[John Gilmore]

Nat Mishkin wrote:
>                     contrary to comments otherwise, at least some software
> that OSF distributes will be subject to licenses created by organizations
> other than OSF.  (Although presumably OSF will not distribute software
> subject to the kind of "heavyweight" licenses currently associated with
> System V Release 3.)

I don't see the difference between depending upon OSF to "never make its
licenses objectionable in the future" and depending upon AT&T to do the same.
Is there a contractural committment from OSF to provide new releases on the
same, or less onerous, terms as its first releases?  If not, you have just
switched from the devil you know to a new devil.

Do you think IBM and DEC will each throw dozens of millions at this and
then sit meekly if the little companies and universities who join this
"nonprofit" vote to do something that hurts the big guys?  Or is there
voting at all?  How are such decisions to be made (I presume this is
settled now, since it is the key to the viability of the OSF)?  Is there an
"OSF Security Council" that gets veto power over things?

I can't see OSF competing on price with AT&T, since AT&T's prices drop
precipitously with volume; Xenix, for example, costs them $10/copy
since they have shipped 300,000 copies.  As the Unix market explodes,
more and more companies will move to this price point.  The only way to
supply a cheaper Unix is to make it free -- which, of course, the OSF
is deliberately NOT doing.  It's the same old "licensed software" BS,
sources to the big companies, binaries to the mortals, legalese before
you get a line of it.  Happily, due to the GNU license, they will not
be able to steal any GNU software and ship it in binary unless they
distribute its full sources at cost, thus aiding and abetting the GNU
effort.

>                     I'd rather place the state of my future software
> into the hands of an organization structured along the lines of OSF than
> into the hands of for-profit companies that have already at least partially
> closed the door on outside input.

Has any of the companies in OSF publicly stated that they will *not*
buy any more software from AT&T?  Or that they will exclusively use OS
software from OSF?  This business of putting your future "into the
hands of xxx" is a strawman; none of these companies is required to use
the OSF software, nor to eschew Unix, SunOS, VMS, MVS, Domain, or
whatever.  Do these companies really expect to stop shipping real Unix
anytime soon, and/or to convert their proprietary stuff to quote "open"
unquote software hastily assembled by a nonprofit committee?  I don't
believe it.

If you can build a better Unix than what AT&T ships, you can keep
running on your old AT&T license (and indeed many Unix companies are
doing this now, e.g. they had SVR2 licenses and they toss the tape and
ship Berkeley Unix, or a mix).  Your company's future software is in
your own hands.
-- 
John Gilmore  {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu        gnu at toad.com
"Use the Source, Luke...."