Re: Solaris 2.6 and Linux

david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
28 Sep 1997 10:11:07 -0700

In article <>,
Raul Miller <> wrote:
>Jeffrey B. Siegal <> wrote:
>> Still, we're talking about many products that are totally outside the computer
>> industry. Consumer products do not generally include license agreements in
>> their manuals (they many not include a manual at all). Something strange like
>> may generate a huge volume of support calls from confused or curious
>> customers, adding to the cost of the product (many of these products are very
>> inexpensive, so any additional cost can be a big deal).
>> In most cases, it makes more sense to just go with commercial software for
>> these applications, even if the Free Software is technically superior and, on
>> the surface, less expensive. Sad but true.
>So you're saying that if I sell automated whatzits, with some fsf software
>in rom, for something like $99, it'll break my back to offer the source
>for the software on floppy for another $99?

It's a pain to do so, particularly if you feel obliged to offer the
source cheaply.

The last product I used Linux for comes with all the BSD and GPLed
sources on the CD-ROM. One of the options I was suggesting, which
was turned down for staffing reasons, was to charge $1000 for
sources, because that would cover (a) labor, (b) a CD-ROM burner, (c)
a CD blank, (d) office charges, and (e) source escrow. And that
probably wouldn't be high enough if a lot of people called in asking
for copies of the source.

david parsons \bi/ I could just imagine the tizzy that would cause...