🚀 go-pugleaf

davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:

>In article <367@global.hacktic.nl>, peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:

>| That is of course nit-picking. Would you suggest GCC if someone asks for a PD
>| C compiler? Of course not! It's not a PD C compiler but a freeware. Sheesh!

>  What's your point here? Your statement is correct, but I think you're
>trying to make it say something else other than what the word mean. GCC
>is not PD, if someone needs PD they can't use it.

Why would anyone need PD and not freeware?

>  Since half the people in the USA are lawyers, it's important.
So that's what is wrong with the US... ;-)

>I have
>released UNIX source to things I was selling for DOS, and restricted
>distribution of the DOS binaries. I forbid distribution of modified
>source code on most of the things I post to the net, because people send
>out hacked versions and I get questions about it.

That's not what I know as freeware. The GNU stuff is freeware and it doesn't
forbid anything but taking away people's freedom. Real PD software has absolute
freedom, so there is only a little difference between the two. What I do with
free (i.e. GNU-ish) software is not affected by the copyleft so me (and for
most hobbyists) normally there is no real difference.

>  There si a real distinction here, and your effort to gloss over it
>does not make it go away.
We are talking about two different things here. I am not glossing things over.

>If something is PD you can do what you like
>with it, including copyrighting it, claiming you wrote it, etc.
Only complete morons do that. I was talking about (supposedly :) normal people.

>That's why FSF and many contributing authors retain copyright.
Of course.

>| Then why can't IBM sue every clone maker? The PC and AT architectures and BIOS
>| are intellectual property of IBM because they were invented and published by
>| IBM.

>  The answer is they can, they have, and they still will. That's why
>people buy commercial BIOS chips, because they are certified developed
>clean and free of IBM code. In the early days many clone vendors were
>sued for the BIOS code.
Apple did the same in the old Apple ][ days. And often those BIOSes/Apple ROMS
were direct copies of the original except for the copyright.

Greetings,
Peter Busser