Subject: Re: Sun to free Solaris.
From: Rich Morin <rdm@cfcl.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:45:54 -0800

At 1:47 PM +0900 1/26/00, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>It empowers the user/developer.  How often does a vendor say "sorry,
>your code is buggy, the OS is fine?"  How often do you think they'll
>say that if there's a risk of getting a reply "here's the patch,
>fool"?  And if they do say it and get that reply, the chances are
>infinitely greater that they'll apologize and implement the patch than
>if source is not available!
>
>This is really not all that different from using a FSF-assigned GPL
>application with a cathedral style of development, as long as Sun
>maintains it well enough to prevent any thought of a fork.  (Except
>that presumably code cannot be borrowed for unrelated or competing
>projects, a big loss, but not a total loss.)

The issue of forking is not as cut-and-dried as all that.  If Harry
Hacker's patch is rejected by Sun, perhaps he can simply publish it
as a context diff.   Thus, we may have de facto forks, despite the
prohibition of "real" ones...

-r
--
Rich Morin:          rdm@cfcl.com, +1 650-873-7841, http://www.ptf.com/~rdm
Prime Time Freeware: info@ptf.com, +1 408-433-9662, http://www.ptf.com
MacPerl: http://www.macperl.com,       http://www.ptf.com/ptf/products/MPPE
MkLinux: http://www.mklinux.apple.com, http://www.ptf.com/ptf/products/MKLP