From: stephen@sun1.clark.net (Stephen Balbach) Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: SLS status Date: 30 Jun 1993 00:41:55 -0400
>torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds) writes:
>
>>As to whether it's a good idea or not is another matter: I personally
>>think Peter (and others like Yggdrasil) have good reason to do something
>>like this. The GPL was meant to make the sources free, but one aspect
>
>Personaly I think that SLS should ONLY make it clear that unless you get the
>package direct from SLS, they will not support you without a fee. That
>seems fair, and there is no need to do anything with the copyright or
>whatever, after all, SLS only packages the software, I know I had to
>do a lot of work myself to get the package really working. I should be
>able to give away as many copys as I want as long as it is made
>clear that SLS is in no way responsible for the COPIES made.
I agree with you Jim that SLS should make it clear that it only supports
copies which have been bought from SLS.
However, to encourage that SLS copyright the package so that only SLS can
sell it will fragment the market. Others, unable to pay the prices set by SLS
will make thier own packages in order to compete at a lower price (FYI 31
5.25" disks can be bought for $10.85 + $5 shipping/packaging + $6/hr labor
= ~$23, while SLS is selling it for ~$150 - quite a markup). With other
packages available people will become confused on what Linux is. It was
confusing enough w/ HJL's boot-disk and a number of other systems floating
around.
If Peter is smart he will keep his product available for re-sell by
others, without support of course, insuring his dominace as THE
authoritative package - It is a well put together package, why have
another one (unless he forces others into it).
Stephen Balbach