🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MTR.90Oct9141932@apple-gunkies.cc.purdue.edu> mtr@apple-gunkies.cc.purdue.edu (Michael Rowan) writes:
>If you have a copy of the GNU Bulletin from June 1990, there is an
>article titled "Possible New Terms for GNU Libraries."
>
>In a nutshell, we are considering a new scheme:  require the
>distributor of the proprietary executable to make the source to OUR
>library available along with the OBJECT files for the rest of the
>application.  This way users can still benefit from updates, fixes and
>improvements to the GNU library without being dependent on the
>distributor.

Is this intended to apply only to compiler libraries, or will it include
such things as the bison skeleton and whole subroutine packages, such as
the GNU getopt and regexp packages? If the latter, that will answer my
objections to the current GPV. I proposed such a change about a year ago,
and was shouted down then. I'm glad to see that the FSF is relaxing their
insistence that others adhere to their utopian ideas.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu  | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"It's a hardware bug!" "It's a    +---------------------------------------
software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_