🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #1674

Re: Copyleft vs Public Domain

#1674
From: Joe Sharkey
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 21:15
49 lines
2540 bytes
In article <9301090813.AA20380@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:

>freedom to redistribute and change it.  That is not just speculation;
>the examples of X Windows, TeX,

The main difference I can see is that both Knuth (TeX) and Tanenbaum (Minix)
put their reputations on the line...

  ``Minix is written by Andy Tanenbaum of Vrigte(?) Universiry...''

Project GNU doesn't  -- but the licence *still* seeks to protect your
reputation!

>The GPL also encourages companies which make improved versions to
>return their improvements for inclusion in the standard version.  If
>not for this, GCC and Emacs would not be nearly as good as they are.

I built EMACS in 1987 - didn't like it, haven't used it since.

GCC: Several companies (Intel and OSF spring to mind) have provided "ports"
     over the years. How many provided new algorithms/optimisations?

>That is not the philosophy of the GNU project, however.  We are not
>pacifists, and being passive and never saying "No" to anyone is not
>our goal.  Our aim is positive--to give the users the freedom to
>cooperate, which is distinguished from the freedom to obstruct.  That
>has been the goal ever since the beginning.

You want to change the way I work/get employment.

F**king great!  *You* do it from a "friendly" University  --  over
here, we don't have any.  Maybe we need sofdtware tarrifs against
zealots...

>If we put our software in the public domain, then we would have a
>great excuse to make.  We could say, "Don't blame us if you have no
>freedom to share and change this program--it was that other guy who
>redistributed it with a nondisclosure license and no source."  But we
>want to succeed in giving users that freedom, not prepare excuses for
>failure.  We use the GPL because it succeeds.

You still deny any responsibily for "fitness of purpose".  What's the
difference?

joe.
-- 
Joe Sharkey      joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk      ...!uunet!ibmpcug!jshark!joe
150 Hatfield Rd, St Albans, Herts AL1 4JA, UK        Got a real domain name
(+44) 727 838662           Mail/News Feeds (v32/v32bis): info@inet-uk.co.uk
Technical Details
Message-ID: <C0Lv27.K3q@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pipex!ibmpcug!jshark!joe
References: <9301090813.AA20380@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pipex!ibmpcug!jshark!joe
From: joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk (Joe Sharkey)
Subject: Re: Copyleft vs Public Domain
Organization: Independent Network (UK)
Distribution: gnu
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:15:42 GMT
Message-ID: <C0Lv27.K3q@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk>
References: <9301090813.AA20380@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Lines: 49