🚀 go-pugleaf

peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:
> rahardj@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Budi Rahardjo) writes:
> >peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:
> >>Why would anyone need PD and not freeware?
> 
> >With PD, I can distribute the program and source as part of my own program
> >without any problems. With freeware (most of the time) I still have to get 
> >the permission from the author to distribute his/her program & source code.
> 
> You didn't read, I was explicitly talking about GNU software and software
> with a GNU-ish copyleft, i.e. freeware. You don't need any permission to
> distribute GNU(-ish) software either in source or binary form. The only
> requirement is that you provide the changed sources to anyone who wants them
> at a nominal cost.

Peter, evidently *you* didn't read the GNU copyleft very carefully.

If you use some GNU code in a program you write, the GNU General Public
License effectively requires you to distribute the ENTIRE program under
the GNU conditions.  In particular, you have to give away, for free,
*your* source code as well as theirs.  (See their definition of "complete
source code" if you don't believe me.)  And if someone else uses what
you've done in a bigger program, they become subject to the GPL as well.

Some people who object to this restriction refer to the GPL as the General
Public Virus because of its self-replicating properties.

I have personally been involved in a free software project wherein we
refrained from using any GNU code, simply because we wanted to use our
distribution terms and not GNU's.

There is a big difference between free software and PD software.
For some purposes the difference does not matter; but claiming that
it never matters merely shows your ignorance.

				regards, tom lane