🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <D3Jy6y.4Jr@kithrup.com>, Mike Stump  <mrs@cygnus.com> wrote:
>In article <hjbD3Gw79.8Bt@netcom.com>, Hwa-Jin Bae <hjb@netcom.com> wrote:
>>the fact is that when those stable releases are made to their customers,
>>the same release is not made available to non-customers.  this is the
>>issue.
>
>Please help me understand what you think we should be doing instead.
>Do you hold us responsible for making sure that everyone in the world
>that wants our software can get it as soon as our customers can get
>it?  If not, I clearly don't understand, could you please state your
>position more fully.
>

i believe that cygnus should make the same software available to people who
have not purchased the support contract with cygnus.  i'd prefer that
cygnus charge nominal cost for this software, but the price is up to
cygnus.  just that the software must be made available at the same time.
this will falsify cygnus' marketing claim that says cygnus' customers get
some special/good  software from cygnus before others, which in my opinion
is against GNU.  and hopefully, cygnus will then stop making such marketing
claims, which, in my opinion, sets a bad precendence w.r.t GNU license
misuse.

>If you think that we should be doing that, just state that.  State
>that you think Cygnus should take on the responsibility of paying for
>shipping throughout the world to all sites that are interested in
>getting our software, even though they are not customers of ours, that
>we should pay for the physical media used and that we should pay for
>another T1 link into a new ftp machine that we will have to purchase
>for this task.

no, you do not have to buy T1 link for this.  just make it available on
tape or whatever, i don't care, and charge for it as much as you like.
but be true to GNU license.   i belive this will resolve all points made by
me in this thread.

>
>I have no problem with you making complete statements like that.  I
>think it is unfair of you to make incomplete statements that infer
>that Cygnus is doing something improper.
>

if you think that i make incomplete statements i apologize.  could you
supply an example?  it is certainly not my intent to make incomplete
statements.  it is possible that i might have, considering the amount
of words i have to type to reply to all flames (mostly exclusively from
cygnus workers, i might add) i've been getting.

>>however, go read your own brochures.  it also says that cygnus'
>>customers get stable releases faster, before non-customers get it.
>
>And?  This is one of our objectives and goals, and we like to think
>that it is true.  Now, it is pointless to argue whether or not it is
>true, as this is an opinion, not something that is measurably true or
>scientifically provable.

some of your co-workers have denied this to be true.  it is not pointless
to argue if it is true, in this case, since there are differences in
opinions within cygnus, or atleast so it seems.  

>
>I call this marketing sleeze.  It's kinda like saying Coke is the
>best.  One cannot prove it, although a good marketer will jump through
>many hoops to try and prove it to you.  I am sorry that you cannot
>distinguish between absolute and provable facts and truths, and
>marketing sleeze.  Most of the readers on the net, most of our
>customers, and in fact most people in the US are probably capable of
>understanding the difference.
>

so you're for marketing sleeze and i am not.  fine.
the matter as to whether i recognize marketing sleeze is clear -- i do.  if
i didn't i would not have started this thread in the first place.  your
argument above (that i don't recognize marketing sleeze) is therefore unfounded.

>>seems to be contraditory.
>
>I would be happy to help you understand the issues and facts.  Cygnus
>is benefited from your understanding.  The only limitation is my time.
>

ah... thanks for the invitation.  i believe that i do have
my facts straight though.  perhaps sometime later.

>>i can understand that cygnus' customers get support (faster or
>>slower), but the distribution of the releases should happen to all,
>
>At what cost?  $100?  $100,000?  $1?  Where do you draw the line?  I
>can tell you where we draw the line.  We will not pay for mailing
>physical media.  We will not pay for another T1 link.  We will not
>purchase a new ftp server to handle the load, we will not hire another
>support person to answer the help requests.
>


i don't draw the line -- it is not up to me.  it is up to you, as GNU
license says, you can charge for it.  the amount is unspecified.
i'd prefer that it be nominal, but it needs not be.  please, you must
understand this about GNU license already.  why ask a silly question?

who said you have to support the non-customers?  i only ask that you make
the software available at the same time.  by any means, at any cost.

>If you think `the distribution of the releases should happen to all',
>then put _your_ money where _your_ mouth is.  You can buy a machine,
>an Internet link, and our release, and put it up for anonymous ftp.  I
>caution you, if you do that, we might point all of our customers at
>your machine, and say, if you want to get our release, the you can ftp
>from...
>

i might just do that -- and it needs not be a T1.  if you were to 
make the source available on time, that is.  all it takes is to ask around
for space on sites around the world, or to borrow space from others, or
just set up a minimal speed link to make it available.  rich people can buy
it from you.  poor people can download slowly, or get tapes via snail mail.
availability is the key here.  the availability will make the marketing
sleeze no longer true, therefore  no longer possible --- since it would be
false advertising, if it were to continue.

>You see why no one wants to help us out this way, and why no one does
>it now?  Now, before you say, but that is unfair, think about what a
>public server is.  Should it be for all of the public, or all of the
>public as long as they are not Cygnus customers?
>

you should check out all the ftp sites that have copies of GNU software.
it is not matter of lack of space or ftp machines.  it is a matter of
availability.

>>if cygnus is truely interested in free software.
>
>One has nothing to do with the other.  The plain fact is, it costs
>money to as you request, and Cygnus cannot justify that cost at this
>time.  Frankly, the money is better spent on improving the free
>software for all.  I am sorry you don't possess enough facts to know
>this.
>

cygnus is not justified to make decisions like that without adhereing to
GNU license.  it specifies that the source be available to all, when it is
made available to some.

i'm tired of writing.  i'm sure you'll respond with more fury...