🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4598@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM> ned%cad@MCC.COM (Ned Nowotny) writes:
.\"By the way, I have no objection to the prodigious software development by
.\"RMS and the FSF supporters.  I do make use of several of their tools and
.\"will continue to do so.  It is only my faint hope that my comments and
.\"those of some others may persuade the FSF to a less restrictive policy on
.\"software sharing.  Please consider that copyright law is a tarpit for
.\"both the "software hoarder" and opposition alike.  The rest of us
.\"would just like to stop reinventing the wheel.  Both hoarders and foes
.\"are impediments, if unequal in their effect.

Not only do I use several of their tools, I use a veritable slew
of GNU tools and programs related to GNU tools in some way.
I have found them to be good replacements for brain dead items
in some cases, and have also found them extremely useful under MSDOS.

Hell, my login shell on my Sun386i account is Bash.

I have to agree with Mr. Mowotny, though--I'd be more inclined
to say "Do what you want with it, so long as you let people know
you hacked it."  The software hoarders will indeed take advantage
of you, then; I don't deny it.  But I would smile to see the software
sharers run amok with the code.  I think twice before I use GNU
code--not because I'm thinking of selling any of it, but because
I don't like to see my program become restricted by the GNU license.
No, that's not really what I do.  I use GNU code, but I frown while
I do it.  There is something grim about the code, and it comes
from the long copyleft statement.

The way the GPL gets handed down to derivative code makes such
derivations a form of "selling out."  Indeed, I _have_ sold out
on several occasions--getopt, regex, bison, these are nice tools--
but that is what I have done, I have sold out.  I haven't sold out
to Apple or some other godforsaken corporation, I've sold out the
FSF.  Well, I don't know.  One is tempted to start a "Free Program
Warehouse" for the production and distribution of copyrighted programs
whose chief restriction is that any hacked versions say they are
hacked.  Then the hoarders can modify the programs and sell them, sure,
but the sharers can do what they will with them, also.  Then there
are some who share sometimes and hoard at other times.  Everyone
could jump on the code and use it as desired.

What you lose is some control over the people using your code.
The FSF seeks more control over its "customers" than pleases me.
I am reminded of how the Federal Government "took over" the United
States--by saying, "If you want Federal funds, you will have to sign over
your autonomy."  Well, I'm a sharer, but I don't rightly appreciate
being preached to when I share, particularly if I lose some of my
autonomy.  To "share" code with the FSF isn't really sharing at all,
but more of a barter.  You get the code, and FSF gets your agreement
about how you will distribute that code, even if it is just "getopt."
At least that's the principle.

I am willing to agree to it.  I'm not giving up much if all I want
to do is put out some free code myself.  But I'm not going to call
it sharing.  Sharing is something you do out of generosity, not to
"change the form of society."

-- 
Barry Schwartz, Chief SAPsucker                  bbs@cdspr.rutgers.edu
Grad Student, Dept. of Elec. and Comp. Engg.     bschwart@elbereth.rutgers.edu
Rutgers University College of Engg.              bbs@hankel.rutgers.edu
Piscataway, NJ 08854    U.S.A.                   rutgers!cdspr!bbs
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU Public License restrictions and GNU utilities
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <2378@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> <1918@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> <4598@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM>
Sender: 
Reply-To: bschwart@elbereth.rutgers.edu (some great stormfowl, whenever he has walked his while)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: The Society for Anachronistic Poetry
Keywords: 

In article <4598@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM> ned%cad@MCC.COM (Ned Nowotny) writes:
.\"By the way, I have no objection to the prodigious software development by
.\"RMS and the FSF supporters.  I do make use of several of their tools and
.\"will continue to do so.  It is only my faint hope that my comments and
.\"those of some others may persuade the FSF to a less restrictive policy on
.\"software sharing.  Please consider that copyright law is a tarpit for
.\"both the "software hoarder" and opposition alike.  The rest of us
.\"would just like to stop reinventing the wheel.  Both hoarders and foes
.\"are impediments, if unequal in their effect.

Not only do I use several of their tools, I use a veritable slew
of GNU tools and programs related to GNU tools in some way.
I have found them to be good replacements for brain dead items
in some cases, and have also found them extremely useful under MSDOS.

Hell, my login shell on my Sun386i account is Bash.

I have to agree with Mr. Mowotny, though--I'd be more inclined
to say "Do what you want with it, so long as you let people know
you hacked it."  The software hoarders will indeed take advantage
of you, then; I don't deny it.  But I would smile to see the software
sharers run amok with the code.  I think twice before I use GNU
code--not because I'm thinking of selling any of it, but because
I don't like to see my program become restricted by the GNU license.
No, that's not really what I do.  I use GNU code, but I frown while
I do it.  There is something grim about the code, and it comes
from the long copyleft statement.

The way the GPL gets handed down to derivative code makes such
derivations a form of "selling out."  Indeed, I _have_ sold out
on several occasions--getopt, regex, bison, these are nice tools--
but that is what I have done, I have sold out.  I haven't sold out
to Apple or some other godforsaken corporation, I've sold out the
FSF.  Well, I don't know.  One is tempted to start a "Free Program
Warehouse" for the production and distribution of copyrighted programs
whose chief restriction is that any hacked versions say they are
hacked.  Then the hoarders can modify the programs and sell them, sure,
but the sharers can do what they will with them, also.  Then there
are some who share sometimes and hoard at other times.  Everyone
could jump on the code and use it as desired.

What you lose is some control over the people using your code.
The FSF seeks more control over its "customers" than pleases me.
I am reminded of how the Federal Government "took over" the United
States--by saying, "If you want Federal funds, you will have to sign over
your autonomy."  Well, I'm a sharer, but I don't rightly appreciate
being preached to when I share, particularly if I lose some of my
autonomy.  To "share" code with the FSF isn't really sharing at all,
but more of a barter.  You get the code, and FSF gets your agreement
about how you will distribute that code, even if it is just "getopt."
At least that's the principle.

I am willing to agree to it.  I'm not giving up much if all I want
to do is put out some free code myself.  But I'm not going to call
it sharing.  Sharing is something you do out of generosity, not to
"change the form of society."  I'm going to call it barter.  I'm
actually providing FSF with a service.  I'm spreading the copyleft.

-- 
Barry Schwartz, Chief SAPsucker                  bbs@cdspr.rutgers.edu
Grad Student, Dept. of Elec. and Comp. Engg.     bschwart@elbereth.rutgers.edu
Rutgers University College of Engg.              bbs@hankel.rutgers.edu
Piscataway, NJ 08854    U.S.A.                   rutgers!cdspr!bbs