🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bt95AH.9vt@monitor.com>, shawn@monitor.com writes:
> Dave Griffiths writes
>>As for a binary object library coming under GNU licence conditions, this
>>is a _bad_ idea because it shuts out commercial developers and thus 
>>ultimately hurts the consumer. I mean suppose someone went and developed 
>>AREXX for the NeXT and then slapped a GNU licence on it - it would be 
>>useless because no commercial apps would be able to use it.
> 
> Perhaps this discussion should move to c.s.n.advocacy, but.....
> 
> I think that any entrant into this marketplace is exciting and should be  
> encouraged.  Competition is healthy.  If there are good FREE objects out  
> there and folks start using them and NeXT's popularity increases then  
> there'll be demand for RESALEABLE objects for use in COMMERCIAL apps.
	Mmm.  If I re-call the GNU/FSF license correctly, it doesn't
	prohibit the re-sale of GNU software.  It merely requires that the
	source be included whether you sell it or give it away.  

	Which reminds me:  Isn't it
	Glenn Reid who includes source when you buy certain of his products
	for the NeXT?  I understand it provides great examples on how to
	do certain things and lets people customize it with those features
	they just have to have.

	[...material deleted...]

c.f.waltrip

Internet:	<waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>

Opinions expressed are my own.