Messages in this thread | | | From | (david parsons) | Subject | Re: Solaris 2.6 and Linux | Date | 28 Sep 1997 10:11:07 -0700 |
| |
In article <linux.kernel.19970927155411.51012@test.legislate.com>, Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> wrote: >Jeffrey B. Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote: >> Still, we're talking about many products that are totally outside the computer >> industry. Consumer products do not generally include license agreements in >> their manuals (they many not include a manual at all). Something strange like >> may generate a huge volume of support calls from confused or curious >> customers, adding to the cost of the product (many of these products are very >> inexpensive, so any additional cost can be a big deal). >> >> In most cases, it makes more sense to just go with commercial software for >> these applications, even if the Free Software is technically superior and, on >> the surface, less expensive. Sad but true. > >Huh? > >So you're saying that if I sell automated whatzits, with some fsf software >in rom, for something like $99, it'll break my back to offer the source >for the software on floppy for another $99?
It's a pain to do so, particularly if you feel obliged to offer the source cheaply.
The last product I used Linux for comes with all the BSD and GPLed sources on the CD-ROM. One of the options I was suggesting, which was turned down for staffing reasons, was to charge $1000 for sources, because that would cover (a) labor, (b) a CD-ROM burner, (c) a CD blank, (d) office charges, and (e) source escrow. And that probably wouldn't be high enough if a lot of people called in asking for copies of the source.
____ david parsons \bi/ I could just imagine the tizzy that would cause... \/
| |