🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4145@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
   In article <MWM.90Oct2145651@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes:
   >Just out of curiosity, when did AT&T start allowing people to freely
   >redistribute their code if it's part of a derived work? At least,
   >you're implying that I'm free to do what I want with my code if it
   >includes AT&T's code, which generally includes redistribution.

   In short, I'm implying nothing of the sort.

By complaining about the FSF licensing "stealing" code, while
recommending AT&T code, you imply that the AT&T code doesn't have
those problems. Since AT&T hasn't changed their licensing, the truth
of the matter is that they steal your code to an even larger degree
than the FSF. A derived work I create that includes AT&T code can only
be redistributed - no matter what the conditions - to people who hold
a license for that source. A derived work I create using FSF code can
be redistributed to anyone I wish, under the conditions that should be
well-known to wise developers.

   You don't expect to be able to reuse AT&T code.

I expect to be able to reuse any well-written piece of software. So in
general, you're right.

   The FSF is saying, "Reuse code! Pass it around! Improve on it! ..Oh,
   by the way, we can control what you do with it if you do."

Well, if you're foolish enough to use software without reading the
license, then it looks like that. Me, I carefully read the license for
_any_ software before I install/use it. That avoids problems like AT&T
calling me with to many lawyers because I accidently distributed part
of dd.

	<mike

--
It's been a hard day's night,				Mike Meyer
And I been working like a dog.				mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
It's been a hard day's night,				decwrl!mwm
I should be sleeping like a log.