Open Source / Samba (was: OS-X vs. Windows) -- MIDRANGE-L

Martin,

Thanks again for your views...  I'm not sure if you're aware how much I
respect the work you're doing with Dave and Craig...

I'm also not sure if I've explained that I see the Linus/ESR/RMS model of
"Open" Source as being almost diametrically opposed to the Apache model.
There not the same, and IMV have few similarities.  I have problems with the
Apache model, as well.

It's not so much the models, really, but has a lot more to do with the
corporate culture of the two enterprises.

See inline...

jt



| -----Original Message-----
| From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
| [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Martin Rowe
| Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 1:13 AM
| To: Midrange-L
| Subject: RE: Samba (was: OS-X vs. Windows)
|
|
| On Thu, 2001-12-20 at 03:40, jt wrote:
| [snip]
|
| > Some other sticking points:
| >
| > I would think a native Samba/400 would be better than an AIX
| port, but don't
| > know for sure...
| >
| > Don't know that I'd do OSS...  But I will NOT work using the
| GPL.  From Gnu
| > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html:
|
| That's a bit of a stickler as Samba is GPL'd...

As has been pointed out, by Scott Klement, you could start from scratch.


|
| > "Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without
| > modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for
| distribution, to anyone
| > anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other
| things) that you
| > do not have to ask or pay for permission."
| >
| > Great philosophy, coming from a guy whose salary (from my
| understanding) was
| > paid by MIT when he developed e-Macs...  Don't work so hot, in
| my situation.
| > IOW, if I work my butt off for months to develop a better mousetrap, by
| > definition of Gnu I MUST DONATE all my time and efforts to the
| community...
| > (I know..  I know..  I'm free to make ALL THE MONEY I want, as
| long as it's
| > from SECONDARY sources of income.  Just can't sell the software...
| > Hmmmm....  What if ALL I PRODUCE is source code?  What if I
| code full-time
| > and DON'T HAVE any secondary source of income to put some bread on the
| > table...?!?)
|
| This is talking about the *source*. Charge what you like for binary
| distribution, as long as you make the code available to those who have
| the binaries. How do you think the likes of RedHat can charge $60 for
| their current Linux distribution? Charge for support, value added
| features, etc. Or do things the SuSE way and include some non-GPL
| installer/admin software that directs the proceedings and prevents
| anyone making their own SuSE based distro.

And why is the line drawn at charging for support, and value-add.  You can
charge minimal amounts for a distribution, but the actual source code...
Nope, can't make ANY money off of that...!

WHO DREW THIS LINE...!  (Oh.. yeah...  RMS/ESR/Linus and their thugs...)

This actually works AGAINST collaborative programming.  If you DO want to
make a living coding programs, you have to CALL the GPL'd procedures, and
are excluded from working with the source.

|
| That's not to say you'll make a fortune from selling purely GPL'd
| software, just that it *isn't* against the license to charge for your
| programs. But if all you do is write code (that hopefully builds to a
| useful piece of software - unless you plan on releasing it in novel form
| ;-) ), then open source, regardless of license, isn't for you.

Exactly.  I make my living writing software.  Open Source attempts to
deprive me of my living, or rather, I'd better have secondary sources of
income...  But IMV it's the CORPORATE CULTURE of Linux that prevents this,
more than the license.

| At least
| the license doesn't stop you using GPL'd software to make your non-free
| code, or control what you can or can't say with it, unlike some recent
| licenses from a certain big company[1]

This is a logical fallacy, IMV.  No doubt "Open" Source is surviving because
it's a reaction against MicroShaft.  But it's not the only way to skin that
cat, and in fact, gets in the way of giving MicroHard some serious
competition (IMHO).


|
| As the author gets to set the license, you could always sell your
| software, then open source the original version say a year later. That
| way the current version stays under your control, but people can benefit
| from the code at some point. That way they'd be less worried about
| vendor lock-in, as they'd get the code to the apps they've purchased in
| due course.

This was PRECISELY my idea for a follow-up on Leslie Russell's column in
News/400 on OS...!  Distribute a year-old version of OS/400 (and maybe call
it OSS/400).

I've often wondered:  What with Moore's Law, what the HECK are they gonna do
with all this processing power.  I mean.. besides draw a paper-clip to
"help" you in M$ Orifice.  I mean.. besides whirly gigs.

If it was me (and there's a reason it ain't...;-), I'd set up massive data
centers for hot-site backup.  So the 400 Community could be prepared in the
event of another 9-11 call.  Use the time it's just sitting around to give
to the Universities...!


|
| [snip]
|
| Regards, Martin
| [1] http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20011011S0007
| --

I'll have to check the link later.  I'm guessing I'll agree with it's POV...


Likewise Regards,

jt