🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <TU129ZCxds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <10612@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes
> a bunch of stuff about shareware and FSFware.
> 
> FSFware is like the shareware with the scary copyright notices, except that
> it's also surrounded with an odor of sanctity... because the donations they
> require are less tightly connected to the almighty dollar. But the bottom line
> of GNUware is no less coercive than the "scareware" that John is complaining
> about.
> 
> Those of us into *really* free software, either voluntary shareware, PD stuff,
> or freeware would do well to hold both camps in disdain.

GNUware is coercive ? That's utter rubbish. No one forces you to use it. The
only restriction on your use of it is that *you* in turn do not restrict
anyone else's rights. *That* is why it's not public domain, but rather is
governed by a very comprehensive copyright (actually, "copyleft"). 
To my mind, it's as free as anything else. Or could it be that you just don't
like the idea of any improvements you make to code in turn being free ?

-- bjh
   Univrsity College Dublin, Ireland.      "There's no future in time travel"