🚀 go-pugleaf

I'd like to comment on what I think are a couple of minor misapprehensions:

In article <306@isgtec.UUCP> robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne) writes:
: Freeware is: "here it is, do with it what you want".
: 
: FSFware is: "here it is, use it however you want, but if distribute
: modified FSFware or anything that includes any FSFware, it is then FSFware,
: and you MUST distribute the source for media costs forever and ever".

The GPL doesn't actually say "media costs".  It says, in one spot, "You may
charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy," and in another
spot, "except for a nominal charge for the cost of distribution".  I would
interpret this to mean (or at least interpret this to be interpretable
as meaning) that if you have to hire someone at $35,000 a year to make the
distribution, and you expect to distribute 10 copies in that year, a nominal
charge would be $3500 plus media costs.  I exaggerate slightly, of course.  :-)

: Shareware is "here it is, it's mine so if you try it out and want to
: continue to use it you must send me money".
: 
: Donateware is "here it is, it is mine, use it and if you like it and
: you are a nice guy, send me a donation, please"

Please send me $100,000 if you like Perl and if you are a nice guy...   :-)

: Only shareware has restrictions on how YOU personally use it.
: Only freeware has NO restrictions.
: Only FSFware is a snare to get you to donate your work to FSF.

Two points to make here.  First, the GPL doesn't say you have to give
your code to FSF.  It merely says it has to be distributed under the
terms of the same license.  You can retain ownership of your code.

This leads to the second point, which is that you should make another
class of software, which I'd call GPLware.  I use the GPL for Perl, not
because I'm interested in giving Perl to FSF (I'm not), nor because I
want to force everyone to give their code to me (I don't), nor because
I think the GPL is perfect for any and every piece of software (it ain't).

I personally feel that FSF would better accomplish their goals by letting
their libraries be linked to proprietary products.  That's pragmatics, not
religion.  More like seduction than rape.

I don't think that small items such as might fit into a single Usenet
article should use the GPL.  It's like pretending /bin/true is proprietary,
which nobody in their right mind would do.

But for a package like Perl, which is self-contained and doesn't trigger
the so-called "virus", the GPL is close to what I want.  It provides
a framework of protections for everyone involved.  Since I own the
copyright, it doesn't prevent me from taking a piece of my own code and 
using it however I like (including giving it away with a copyright
instead of a copyleft).  But it prevents someone from taking the code
and making some kind of travesty of it, then duping innocent people
into thinking it's the real thing, and making them pay for their ignorance
to boot.  This has happened to me before.  I can't say that I like it.

But I agree that people shouldn't call each other ankle-biters in this
newsgroup.  (Even if it's true.  :-)

Larry "$GPL != $FSF" Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov