🚀 go-pugleaf

Doug Lea posted recently explaining the rationale behind considering
software that uses GNU libraries derivatives works of those libraries,
subject the the GPL.  His fairly persuasive argument, if I may
summarize, is that if they were not, someone could take the source to
Gnu-emacs (for example), make all but the .c file containing "main"
into a library, rewrite "main," and sell it.

Personally, I think the good of humanity would best be served if
libg++ and other GNU libraries could be considered "tool-like", so
that use of libg++ was equivalent to the use of g++, gcc, gnu-emacs,
bison, etc.  (I would be happy to discuss why I think this if a
gnu.politics-equivalent ever materializes.)  However, I must admit
that Doug's is a fairly convincing argument.  I am posting to
suggest that there is a possible compromise position: what if the GPL
were modified so that people creating proprietary works using GNU
libraries were required to have customers sign a form saying something
like:

I realize that the software I am about to buy uses Free software.  I
have read the accompanying bulletin "Great Software You Can Get For
Free!", and am aware of the 800 number I can call to discuss with Free
Software experts whether the software I am about to buy is a
significant innovation over something I can get for free.

Perhaps the FSF could require a small fee be sent in by the seller for
with each such charge form to defree the cost of the 800 number.
Perhaps the FSF could distribute a list of software products
that they would describe as "acceptably different" and another list of
"blatent ripoffs" in the bulletin the release form encourages people
to read.

I realize that this is perhaps unwieldy, but it's an idea...

--
Dave Detlefs			Any correlation between my employer's opinion
Carnegie-Mellon CS		and my own is statistical rather than causal,
dld@cs.cmu.edu			except in those cases where I have helped to
				form my employer's opinion.  (Null disclaimer.)
--