At 1:15 PM -0800 3/21/03, Bill Studenmund wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
>
>>  At 1:03 PM -0500 3/21/03, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
>>  >On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 05:53:45PM -0800, Space Case wrote:
>>  >
>>  >By which Apple means "our bean counters say we *might* still be able
>>  >to make money off of that code, so you can't have it".
>>
>>  This question was seriously asked and received serious consideration
>>  when A/UX was abandoned.  A major concern, as I recall, was the
>>  distraction cost.  If they let the code out then it would generate
>>  lots of questions which Apple would have to respond to.  That would
>>  not only cost money directly, but would probably distract engineers
>>  who ought to be concentrating on the next product to make money, not
>>  the last one which wouldn't.
>
>Additionally, there is the cost of preparing code/documentation for public
>view. You have to check licenses and be carefull about things you received
>under NDA. Also, it could be that the documentation is not in the source.
>Then you have to prep for external consumption documents that were never
>meant for it. :-(

NDA, yeah.  A/UX was ATT code based, not BSD code based now you 
remind me.  They added more than the usual amount (for the time) of 
BSD code, but still.  Nobody ever mentioned that as apart of the 
reason but it had to count.

>Much easier to just make on-going projects be Open-Source clean, and go
>forward.
>
>Take care,
>
>Bill


-- 
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu