🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2168@psuhcx.psu.edu> c9h@psuhcx.psu.edu (Charles M. Hannum) writes:
>1.MCS.COM> <
>I think the most important thing is that *I* don't get PAID for enhancing GNU
>products.  A person working for GNU *does*.  GNU gets grants up the wazoo to
>continue their work.  Even if I completely overhaul GNU CC, I wouldn't get a
>SINGLE CENT for it.  While that may be all fine and dandy in *your* eyes,
>it's *not* in mine.  Getting ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (monetary or otherwise) for my
>work just doesn't appeal to me.

Uhm, quite a few of the people who contribute to the FSF don't get paid.
Michael Tiemann, author of G++ and porter to several different
architectures, didn't get paid for quite a bit of the work he did (he did
get paid for some, I think, and now he gets paid to do it all the time).

Not all of us care about money, you see.  Sure, it's nice, and it pays the
bills, but that's why we have jobs 8-).  Seriously, the reason I disagree
with the copyleft is because it *steals* code, in a sense.  (For examples,
see previous articles by myself and Peter, among others...)

Shareware is getting lots of flack because it steals resources.  Most news
articles offer little, but, then, they expect little (as I've pointed out
elsewhere, I don't ask anybody to send me money if they read this message);
shareware offers a possibly useful program, but, then, it also expects money
in return, in addition to eating up resources (disk space in the spool
directories, phone time, etc.).  This is very contrary to UseNET customs
(where, traditionally, either public domain or "freely distributable"
programs are posted; sadly, there are some notable exceptions).

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "Time has little to do with infinity and jelly donuts."
seanf@sco.COM    |    -- Thomas Magnum (Tom Selleck), _Magnum, P.I._
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.