🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <NELSON.89Oct16205843@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
}In article <SJA.89Oct16125938@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes:
}
}   	We all know that some people (many people) disagree with me.  Some of
}   	them have already said so.  If you are another one of these people,
}   	please spare the readers another message to this effect.  Your opinion
}   	has already been expressed--saying it again won't help anyone.
}
}   Does this say: "shut up if you disagree with me"?
}
}No.  It says: "Your opinion has been expressed and noted.  Reiterating
}your opinion is not useful, as your opinion has already been noted."

But the point of the comment is that there is no apparent symmetry: we've all
heard all the opinions on the OTHER side bunches, too.  Telling one side of a
discussion that "I've already heard what you have to say, so you can stop
saying it even as I keep saying my bit over and over" is a bit odd, no?

}   You can do anything with public domain code, including sell it.
}   Suppose an "evil software hoarder" (aka the bogey man) grabs your
}   program, makes proprietary modifications to it and sells it for money.
}
}The problem with public domain code is this: If I want my code to be
}and remain freely available, I can't put it in the public domain.  If
}I do, someone can take my code and mix it with theirs.  My code effectively
}becomes theirs.  This is not acceptable to me.

I missed part of the reasoning there: the 'mixer' didn't take your code
out of the public domain.  It is still there and still freely
available.  Now, the *modified* version of your code [after the mixing]
may or may not be available, but why do you care: *your* code is still
out there.  Many folk, for example, would *prefer* that after-mixing
versions of their code NOT be publicly available because defects in the
'improvements' tarnish the apparent quality and utility of the
original, unblemished code.

  /Bernie\