🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Dec16.104300.12930@ richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk)
>Well after a recent exchange with Peter Deutsch, the prime (if not only)
>author, it's becoming more clear to me that we're all wasting our time.
>
>I sent mail to Peter...  In part I said:
>	... you give the impression that you don't necessarily want our
>	help.  The feeling is one of : "give me some hints here and
>	there, but the code is mine."
>In reply to this Peter said the following:
>	The copyright that comes with Ghostscript is quite serious:
>	Ghostscript is, in my view, a piece of potentially commercial
>	software that I have developed, that I own, and that I choose
>	to distibute as GNUware.
>Frankly, for me that took a few days to fully sink in.  Peter has
>written Ghostscript and will allow us to use it and debug it for him.
>He reserves the right to turn it into a commercial product once we've
>helped him get it to that point.
>Then what do we have?  A package of what used to be GNUware that we
>are no longer allowed to modify or perhaps even use?
>I understand that anything distributed under a copyright like the GNU
>software can potentially be taken away. 
.... a fair amount more, seemingly good fair points and concerns, edited....

   I must have a real misunderstanding here, and this isn't exactly the place
for it, but it was my (clear) understanding that the GNU foundation, etc, was
clearly on the complete side of complete PD (only) work.  They raise money from
all kinds of companies (hardware, software, users...) in various forms (cash,
hardware, development time & debugging) in order to create a brave new world
of FREE open systems software.  Some of this money is available to people like
Peter in order to (partially) compensate them for their efforts.  If these
people (which are operating even a tiny amount off tax free donations) are 
going to be allowed to snatch back their code (or seal it & freeze it at ANY
functioning level) and spin it off as $$$ware, then that raises real quastions
regarding the functionality of GNU.
   I hasten to remind everyone look to the past for a image of the future, what
did apple do with the MAC software.  Initially the system concept was to have
a full functional system,  OS, editor, graphics (painting/drawing), etc.  As
the mac 'matured' these packages were spun out of the free system software 1
at a time, and eventually shuffled out & sold to another company for further
development & sale.  SUN is doing the same thing now.  Earlier system versions
included fortran, pascal, & C as FREE languages, and other software like
sunDraw, sunPaint, sunWrite, were freeware while they were really being made
into functional (and functioning) software products.  Now, all of that has been
spun out (except for C) and is available as $$$ware.  In light of this, how
will GNU-ware fare any different if developments like this are left alone to
market forces.
   This isn't to say that all software should be free, or that the development
of software is cheap or has no value...  I strongly defend the rights of
software companies (and individuals) to free market,& price their products
as they see fit. Also to jail & fine software theft.  I also defend the right
of software entities to price themselves right into bankruptcy and oblivion.
That;s the free market system.  However, it turns me the wrong way when we all
support (thats right, if DEC gives GNU $$$, it costs me $$$ too: same with
lotus or even beatrice) a free foundation like GNU, and then the players that
are at the grail sucking up our free support (or like dope dealers getting
us hooked &/or simply using us) basically tell us they plan to leave us in the
lurch and start selling the software....
al
-- 
Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University
 InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu  amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu
 Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE