🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <hjbD3C7xy.6sM@netcom.com>, Hwa-Jin Bae <hjb@netcom.com> wrote:
>that is, saying
>something like, "GNU tools downloaded from the Internet are available "as
>is". They are not the same as the Cygnus GNU Toolset and have not been 
>through the same rigorous testing process..", for example, while not
>informing their customers about the fact that there really is NO way for
>them to restrict the redistribution of their Cygnus GNU Toolset.

Wrong.

Cygnus customers *do* know that there is no way to restrict the
redistribution of most of the code (all of the GPL'd code).  Cygnus goes to
a great deal of trouble to make sure its customers know which code can be
redistributed, and which code *must* be redistributed.

Your major complaint seems to be that Cygnus has its own release schedule.
Too bad.  The FSF has its own release schedule, as well.  Cygnus employees
spend a lot of time testing software, and making improvements to the
software, and to the infrastructure (Makefiles, testing processes, etc.).
All of that is made available to the world, really.  It is made available on
a rather predictable fashion (typically, four times a year).

The FSF, on the other hand, makes more releases -- usually.  They are not
predictable.  Sometimes they get absolutely no testing -- gcc 2.5.x got a
very bad reputation because new releases were made every few days, it
seemed, because of the number of bugs.  (In some of the cases, changes were
made to the code mere minutes before the release was made, with absolutely
no testing done -- even to see if the just-made change would compile.  In at
least one case, this change was made by Kenner, who also did the release.)

>all it
>takes it one customer of Cygnus' to buy it, and upload the entire thing on
>an FTP site.

Go ahead.  Cygnus won't stop you.  You'll probably even be encouraged by
some Cygnus employees.

Cygnus' selling point is *support*.  Cygnus does *not* sell software.
Cygnus sells support for software.  ``Support'' means the ability for people
to call or email in bug reports, or request features, or ask stupid
questions like, "How do I put a tape in the tape drive?"  ``Support'' also
includes paying for someone to improve the documentation.  Which is *also*
freely distributable.

>you won't see this type of loophole, purposefully inserted
>into GNU license, explicitly declared in any of their marketing papers.

Uhm, actually, it is.  Somewhere, I think, anyway.  It talks about the FSF,
the GNU code, and how the code is free software.  I think the term
``sourceware'' is used to describe it, and is explained in great detail.

No, nowhere does the literature say, ``Yes, you can get a release from us,
and then place it up for anonymous FTP.''  Why should it?  It mentions,
explicitly, that the code is free software, and freely distributable.

>i'm not trying to make enemies here.  I'm trying to make people understand
>this issue better. 

No, you're not.  You've got some idea of how the world is, and you're
convinced you're right, and damn anyone who disagrees with you.

How many Cygnus customers have you spoken with?  How many Cygnus employees?
Did you talk to any Cygnus salespeople to find out what they'd say?

Bah.  Sound and fury, signifying nothing.