🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KEVIN.93Jan5162507@calamityjane.edscom.demon.co.uk> 
kevin@edscom.demon.co.uk (Kevin Broadey) writes:

>>>>>> In article <1993Jan5.022956.19008@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>>>>>> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

ME:
>>>I believe the CopyLeft places no restrictions on "paraphrasing" -- so
>>>feel free to go ahead to your heart's content.

MZ:
>> Correct.  What about quotation?

KB:
>Quotation or plagiarism - what's the difference?  One is a fair use of a
>copyrighted work, the other isn't.

Precisely.  And, to the extent that this cannot be legally done with
GNU, the code it contains is not free.

KB:
>Your contention that GNU software is not "free", in that it is not
>*totally* without obligation or restriction, is true.
>
>But before you claim victory...
>
>You object to the use of the word "free" in "Free Software Foundation"
>because the "freedom" is restricted by a caveat in the form of the
>General Public Licence.  Many contributors have already pointed out that
>"free" is always restricted by the context in which it is used, so you
>can't use a linguistic argument.

I am not using a linguistic argument.

KB:
>Now that I've flogged that one to death (again), I'll move on to what I
>think your real objection is:-
>
>You object to the terms of the GPL because they require you apply the
>GPL to any of your own work which you distribute with FSF work, and you
>want your work to remain proprietary.

I do not believe having said anything about my wants with respect to
the status of my work.  In any case, I no longer program anything more
involved than shell scripts.  My interest is solely in the political
and philosophical aspects of this case.

KB:
>The answer to this is - don't distribute your work with FSF work.
>Instead, distribute it on its own with all your lock-out, software-
>hoarding conditions and include a README file listing the FSF stuff
>needed to get it up and running.  This way you don't contravene the GPL
>because you're not redistributing FSF software.

Irrelevant to my point.  THe GNU code is still not free.

KB:
>There is an alternative interpretation to your objection to the GPL,
>based on your anarchic (no insult intended) view of "free"...
>
>You object to the terms of the GPL because they do not allow you to
>plagiarise swathes of FSF code, bundle them into your own work, then
>distribute the lot with every copyright, "look-and-feel" and "trade
>secret" protection that you can find.

In my circles, this is known as attacking Aunt Sally.

KB:
>I think this interpretation is morally reprehensible and against the
>best interests of the user community the "free" software is aimed at.

The "free" software is aimed at all users of an appropriate class of
hardware.  Through circumstances beyond their control, many of them,
-- all professional programmers employed by commercial software
manufacturers, -- are unable to derive any benefit from it, unless
they are free to appropriate it.  Stallman says that he wants software
to be as free as air.  If air were as "free" as GNU, your car would
stop running, for want of ability to confine it in a hermetically
sealed chamber.

I have no love lost for proprietors of any sort; however, I reserve
especially strong feelings of disgust for self-proclaimed champions of
freedom through new, improved bondage.

>Kevin
>--
>.signature: no such file or directory

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."