From: kem@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Kelly E Murray) Subject: Re: What would people think of binary-only software on Linux? Date: 1 Mar 1993 22:34:46 GMT
In article <1993Feb26.144603.19178@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, hyvatti@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Jaakko Hyvatti) writes:
|> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
|> >If someone developed applications or drivers for Linux and sold them
|> >in binary-only form, what would the reaction be?
|>
|> If the applications are compiled with gcc or linked with GNU
|> libraries you should get a copy of 'GNU Library General Public License',
|> found in any GNU distributing site in a file called COPYING.LIB and
|> study it. I cannot see any other restrictions provided that there is no
|> other copyrighted code involved.
|>
|> Of course someone here would complain, but he doesn't have to buy your
|> software. This is a free world, isn't it?
|>
|> Another point: the idea behind GPL is that there should be no
|> restrictions on use of any piece of software. If we did not accept
|> the use of non-GPL software with Linux, we would restrict possible
|> applications of Linux.
|>
|> Jaakko
If Linux won't support binary-only, proprietary commercial applications,
then it will never really become a substitute for DOS, SCO-Unix, SUNs, etc.
Remember, an operating system is nothing more than a platform for applications.
If those applications are restricted to GNU-ified, or public-domain
software, it will dramatically limit the potential user-base.
With all the no-cost stuff available, A commerical application would have
to provide significant value to justify its expense and binary-only status.
With the rapidly growing Linux user-base, you may actually see some
commercial software ported to Linux. I would think this would be a good thing.
-Kelly Murray (kem@cis.ufl.edu)
Systems Programmer, University of Florida