Net Integration's NITIX OS

[DCT Jared]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:45:13 -0600, Hal Duston wrote:
>On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 14:51, DCT Jared wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:42:24 -0600, Hal Duston wrote:
>> >Does this mean that I have to _license_ my changes to the Linux kernel
>> >to all third parties? Yes. Does this mean that I have to _distribute_
>> >my modified sources to all third parties? No.
>>
>> Uh, this is not making sense. You mean to tell me that
>> I can give you a license but do not need to follow up
>> with actual code?
>
>That is correct.  I only have to give the source code to those parties
>to whom I give the binary code.  If I take my modified kernel and give
>it to a single other member of KCLUG, and also give them a copy of the
>source code, I have thereby fulfilled  my entire obligations with regard
>to the GPL.  I have to give all parties a _license_ to the source code
>so that any other party can use the code as the might receive it from
>the other member of KCLUG to whom I have given the source code.

Okay, I see here how we are in agreement and how we are talking about
two separate implementations of the same principle. We must be 
clear here what is happening, not accepting your clarification as
a direct rebuttal to Jonathan Hale's point, which it seemed to be at
first. Instead, you are refining his point, clearly agreeing that the source code 
must be distributed at no cost, if the binary is being distributed. You are 
confining the act of source distribution to only those who specifically
received binary distribution.

Now, I will take what you're saying a step further and admit what it is
clearly obvious: anyone who receives the source and binary can
promptly release BOTH for free to anyone else and is under no
obligation to hide either one (since binary can be derived from source,
source is the more equal of the two). This larger area of freedom is 
where most open source transactions take place. I initially mistook 
your refinement for a rebuttal, when in fact it was simply looking at the 
most confined instance of the idea behind open source.

In other words, you are correct that as a modifier of GPL'd code, I 
_must_ distribute source code to those who receive my binary code,
and need distribute it no further. Yet it should be clear that this instance
in no way limits others from distributing the source code for me,
since as you clarified, I give license to _everyone_ whether I give them
code or not.

And of course it in no way limits me from making the source code freely
available to everyone, in effect trading the popularity of my website
for tangible cash, which is how most open source code is distributed.

>> As I understand open source, it means that I need to distribute
>> any modified source code to EVERYONE if I distribute even
>> a single binary to anyone other than myself. (Myself can
>> mean "my corporation" here, of course.) Sourceforge,
>> for example does not permit people to distribute binaries
>> alone, and they only host open source projects. Thus, if
>> you are saying that
>> _all third parties are licensed_
>> AND
>> _only some third parties actually get source code_
>> you are not making sense, and I am in agreement with
>> Jonathan Hale, your position is clearly breaking the spirit
>> of the open source agreement.
>
>I am quite certain that if I give a modified Linux kernel (with source)
>to other members of KCLUG, I am still _not_ obligated to deliver source
>code to anyone who asks to receive it.  I am only obligated to deliver
>the modified source to any parties that have received the modified
>binaries directly from me.  Any other parties can receive the modified
>source from the same party they received the modified binaries.  I have
>to _license_ the code to anybody who has a copy of it, but I do not have
>to deliver it.  If delivering a modified binary+source code to some
>members of KCLUG thereby obligated me to deliver binary+source code to
>any and all parties could quickly overwhelm my capability to deliver it.
>This would thereby be a disincentive for me to even develop any
>modifications in the first place.

I'm grateful for the precision with which you speak, since it refines the
conversation to essentials; bare metal. However precise, the disincentive 
you mention is exaggerated. I give two reasons: one, if your website is so 
popular that you are overwhelmed, you are therefore attracting a host of people 
who are grateful and willing to donate--witness the $30,000 raised in two days
by Wikipedia when their server crashed a few weeks ago. Yes, they were
overwhelmed by becoming the largest encyclopedia on the planet in
three years, but yes they now have enough cash to invest in hardware
to keep up. Granted, it's not millions, but it's enough.

http://wikimedia.org/letter.html

And second, the incentive toward having a popular website is far
stronger than the disincentive which comes from managing said site,
at least for most geeks.

http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_10/raymond/#d8
(eric s raymond on the reputation economy)

Now,,, all of that being said, I want to return to Jonathan Hale's
original concern which was NITIX, whom he deems to be actively hiding
their source code. The question for NITIX is still valid: "Where is the
source code for your modifications? You don't have to provide it
to me, but could you please point me to someone who can?"

(If the answer is no, then NITIX's value in the reputation economy
just decremented: $nitix--;)

As Oren says of MS "We don't have to bash Microsoft; their
short-sighted strategies will do them in all of their own accord."

-Jared