Re: Solaris 2.6 and Linux

Raul Miller (
Sun, 28 Sep 1997 13:34:54 -0401

Jeffrey B. Siegal <> wrote:
> Sigh. It is a good idea, and I encourage you to pursue it. However, it
> doesn't "solve" the problem. The manufacturer needs to contract with
> you, which means they need to investigate whether you are legitimate
> or not. They need to monitor whether the service you are providing is
> of acceptable quality for them to be associated with (can't have you
> dis'ing their customers). They need to have a plan for what happens if
> you go out of business prior to their three year obligation. Etc.

To a large degree, these things are covered by existing product
liability laws, and contract laws. In practice, most companies would do
a brief check (make a few phone calls, maybe) then not worry about it
unless problems cropped up.

Also, unless I've completely mis-read the GPL, when I offer such a
service, I become liable for fulfilling it. [The company which provides
the source needs to announce that that's how the source code becomes
available, but unless there's something very fradulent going on their
responsibility ends there.]

> It is entirely possible that the transaction costs involved with
> outsourcing their obligation are higher than the cost of satisfying it
> internally.

As the bulk of the transaction cost is the cost to make a decision,
what you're really saying (now) is that in some companies it's
too expensive to make decisions.

> Nothing comes free.

As do many other things...