🚀 go-pugleaf

nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) wrote:
> GPL is a better fit in the hacker world, I'm more concerned that it is
> not benefiting, and perhaps even harming, the end-users who have no
> interest in compiling their software or ever seeing the source to it.
> I don't see how those users are getting access to GPL'd technology.

Much of the existing GNU software is development tools, so its natural
market is developers.  Still, I think most of them are glad to use
binaries (perhaps compiled by their sysadmin) and never even look at
the sources.

> Everyone points to Cygnus, but I haven't heard that Cygnus is selling
> binary-only (source on request of course) distributions of GNU software
> to end-users.

Cygnus is selling binary distributions of GNU software to end-users.
Now you've heard it.
Ask for our "vintage" release for the Sun-4 or Sun-3.  We also have
a C++ release for Motorola 88000-based systems.

We actually put binaries and sources on the same distribution medium,
since on the media we use, it's easier than stocking two tapes and 
handling two kinds of orders per product.  If we were dealing with
low-capacity floppies, we might do separate binary-only and
source-only releases.

> And one example does not an industry make.

How about Intel (six or eight hosts cross compiling to i960), Wind
River Systems (sun3 and sun4 cross to realtime 68000), and Motorola
(cross-development from DOS and Unix to 56000)?  The Free Software
Foundation even sells binaries for VMS systems, and will soon have to
provide Sun binaries once the native compilers are unbundled.
-- 
John Gilmore   {sun,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu   gnu@toad.com   gnu@cygnus.com
"It isn't given to us to know those rare moments when people
 are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal."