🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <NELSON.90Mar10121402@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
> I suppose you rail against libraries that require the payment of royalties
> also, but I've never seen you do it.

You've never seen me rail against libraries that require royalty payments
simply because I haven't seen any since long before I even heard of the GNU
manifesto. It's a red herring.

OK, I didn't plan on getting sucked into another pointless debate on whether
the GNU copyleft is a good thing or not. You obviously have the right to put
whatever terms you want on the redistribution of your code that you want. But
by saying that your software is free because you don't demand money in exchange
for it has lead to the following two misapprehensions:

	(1) The terms freeware and GNUware are equivalent.

	(2) The only way to keep people from stealing your code is
	    to put it under the GNU Public License.

Is it OK for me to point out that these two statements are false without being
flamed for it?
-- 
 _--_|\  `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/      \  'U`
\_.--._/
      v