🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1i8cvgINN9ar@shelley.u.washington.edu>
tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

>>one has no billing.  Finding a better way to copyright and distribute 
>>software and source code is a subject that many have talked about;
>>the FSF (including "men" like Stallman for those who insist on 
>>personalizing) have actually taken a public position and done
>>their best to put their ideas into practice.  Few political action
>>groups have so successfully worked both the theoretical and practical 
>>sides of a difficult problem.

>>If you have a better idea, please share it;  we're interested.

>How about the way X is distributed?

Exceedingly good point.

If I may quote from the X11R4 release notes:

"Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software
and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
supporting documentation, and that the name of M.I.T.  not be used in
advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software
without specific, written prior permission.  M.I.T.  makes no
representations about the suitability of this software for any
purpose.  It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty.

This software is not subject to any license of the American Telephone
and Telegraph Company or of the Regents of the University of
California."

I believe this qualifies as an example of practical distribution of
free software which has neither hindered the popularity of the program
nor resulted in any excessive competition with copied or adapted
commercial versions.

Now if somebody would just get it into his head that Mikhail is not
merely interested in the semantical purity of the word "free", but
rather the concept of freedom as it applies to so-called "freely-
distributed" software, this discussion might become more intelligent.

  --Erin