🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <860dn3$bs1$2@justus.ecc.lu>, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>In article <c8Og4.77$5A4.687@burlma1-snr2>,
>	Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>> In article <pw-1701001835590001@166.84.250.180>,
>> Paul Wallich <pw@panix.com> wrote:
>>>The worker is, however, quite capable of agreeing not to exercise a
>>>contractual right in return for compensation.
>> 
>> Not in this case.  The GPL, says:
>> 
>>     If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations
>>     under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a
>>     consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
>> 
>> If distributing software internally within an organization were held to be
>> distribution w/r/t the GPL, the "other pertinent obligation" would be your
>> agreement to pay the employee only if they don't redistribute the Program.
>> The above clause would prohibit you from distributing the Program in the
>> first place.
>I use GPL'd software because it gives me a head start, and avoids
>me having to re-invent the wheel. My customers are happy to have
>me use GPL'd software because it reduces my bill, and ensures that
>I use software that's been tested elsewhere, and quite often is
>supported, *and* because they accept my interpretation that they
>are not required to distribute the modified software.
>I like the arrangement, because it entices companies to employ local
>programmers, and to search for the best solution to their problem
>through adapting the computer to them, rather than vice-versa.
>(Reducing the flexibility of the most adaptive machine ever developed
>by mankind by only using shrink-wrapped software looks like a
>real folly to me.)
>
>Your suggestion makes all of this moot, and GPL'd software close
>to useless for anyone else but an individual. I prefer to believe
>that a company using GPL'd software does *not* distribute it to
>its employees by installing it on the computers these employees
>use.

Do you really think that foo hacked at bar for the last 3 years just so
that YOU could get paid for it?  He hacked at bar for the last 3 years so
that you could use it then if you added to it, he could see those
additions too!  We all give to the community, so whether we get paid or
not becomes much less relevant.  If you aren't giving to the community,
though, then you getting paid is absolutely disgusting and completely
disenheartening.