🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <852.25ff8253@ccvax.ucd.ie> b_haughey@ccvax.ucd.ie (Brian J Haughey) writes:
>In article <306@isgtec.UUCP>, robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert A. Osborne) writes:
>> 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.
>It bothers me, too when people refer to GNU software copyleft disparagingly
>as a "snare". The simple answer is - you don't like GNU software because
>the FSF won't let you make money from what was ultimately other people's
>work. Okay, so you modified it. Big deal - if you made such extensive
>changes, and feel the need for some profit from that, why use any GNU
>source code in the first place ?  [I'm not referring to Rob here]

The FSF won't let me distribute MY work freely if it includes a small
part of their work. They require me to include the whole of my work
under their terms. The whole of my program falls under their license
just because I (possibly unknowingly) used their getopt routine, for
example.

I'm not interested in making money from their code. I don't believe they
should be able to force me to support their utopia, either.

>People misunderstand the purpose of the FSF - it exists so that ordinary
>users can have the benefit of decent software (often better than commerecial
>products) at a nominal cost. People like you obviously don't appreciate 
>this principle. Fine. But don't attack the FSF because of it.

Go read the GNU Manifesto again. The FSF exists to make Stallman's
utopia a reality. He's welcome to the idea, but don't force me into the
same mold.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jay@splut.conmicro.com       (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
attctc, RIP. It was nice knowing ya +----------------------------------------
         "Klein bottle for sale. Inquire within." - Charles Hannum