🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3294@airs.com> ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) writes:
>nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>>The companies that financed us, being big old companies with large law
>>staffs, would never have stood for such a restriction on the source that
>>they got.  So the option is not an option.  In general, the bigger the
>>company the harder and more expensive this becomes.
>
>Remember that the restriction only applies if the big old companies
>resell your program.  And the restriction amounts to their having to
Which they certainly are doing.  That was the point of their buying it.

>make object code available and to having a code license that does not
>prohibit reverse engineering.  I don't see that making the object code
>available is any more onerous or more of an administrative headache
>than providing updates for a fee.
You've never dealt with a big company then.  They would far rather pay
money then create a project with staff and project plans and involvement
of manufacturoring and all the associated mess.

>What happens if you present it to the big old companies as a choice:
>accept these restrictions, or get a product without them that will
>take an additional month to write and cost correspondingly more money?
It's too late for that.  The contracts are done.  They get the source
and it can't have restrictions.  And in at least one case we'll go
through hell and high water to avoid ever having to talk to their
lawyer again.


-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
617/497-2922                    |       info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.