O'pain Software Foundation: (2) Why is it better than AT&T?

[Nathaniel Mishkin]

In article <4629 at hoptoad.uucp> gnu at hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>I don't see the difference between depending upon OSF to "never make its
>licenses objectionable in the future" and depending upon AT&T to do the same.
>Is there a contractural committment from OSF to provide new releases on the
>same, or less onerous, terms as its first releases?  If not, you have just
>switched from the devil you know to a new devil.

Perhaps.  At least the new devil is not a competitor.  At least it's starting
off with a different model of operation about software licensing.  Sure,
the OSF could turn out to be Godzilla of the software world, but I don't
expect it to be.  The fur is already showing on AT&T though...

>Do you think IBM and DEC will each throw dozens of millions at this and
>then sit meekly if the little companies and universities who join this
>"nonprofit" vote to do something that hurts the big guys?  Or is there
>voting at all?  How are such decisions to be made (I presume this is
>settled now, since it is the key to the viability of the OSF)?  Is there an
>"OSF Security Council" that gets veto power over things?

The model is that the OSF is a *company* and it is run by the staff of
the company, just like every other company.  Sure, the
board of directors can fire the president and everyone under him
if they think they're doing the wrong thing, but is that going to happen?
Is it going to happen because they picked semantics A for "signal(2)"
versus semantics B?  Not very likely.  If that happens, the OSF will
have failed, and I think all the sponsors understand this.

>Has any of the companies in OSF publicly stated that they will *not*
>buy any more software from AT&T?  Or that they will exclusively use OS
>software from OSF?  This business of putting your future "into the
>hands of xxx" is a strawman; none of these companies is required to use
>the OSF software, nor to eschew Unix, SunOS, VMS, MVS, Domain, or
>whatever.  Do these companies really expect to stop shipping real Unix
>anytime soon, and/or to convert their proprietary stuff to quote "open"
>unquote software hastily assembled by a nonprofit committee?  I don't
>believe it.

It's a direction, not an instantaneous event.  I believe the sponsors
have said "We can't keep going on this way, let's find a new way".

>If you can build a better Unix than what AT&T ships, you can keep
>running on your old AT&T license (and indeed many Unix companies are
>doing this now, e.g. they had SVR2 licenses and they toss the tape and
>ship Berkeley Unix, or a mix).  Your company's future software is in
>your own hands.

It could well *not* be in your own hands if you make a technical and
market-oriented decision that you *have* to support a particular piece
of software, base your company on it, and then have your chain yanked
2-3 years down the line.  The only "choice" one has is to find a different
direction.

BTW, I object to the various speculation (on the part of several people)
on the topic of the "ulterior motives" of DEC and IBM.  (No one cares
about Apollo's ulterior motives, I guess :-)  "They really just want
to wreak havoc", it is said.  Aren't AT&T and Sun subject to ulterior
motives?  "Get them hooked on a standard *we* define and that *they're*
contractually obligated to support and then add some whacko feature that
kills some piece of added value our major competitor has managed to eek
out".  Geez.  Talk about white hats and black hats!

-- 
                    -- Nat Mishkin
                       Apollo Computer Inc.
                       Chelmsford, MA
                       {decvax,mit-eddie,umix}!apollo!mishkin