🚀 go-pugleaf

jesse@franklin.com (Jesse Perry) writes:
: "Liberty" certainly is *not* the normal
: meaning of "free" in connection with things which are commonly
: bought and sold, such as software.

Exactly.  People have rights, not bits.

(though "Give me source code, or give me death!" has a nice meter to it...)

On the other hand, I think the GPL is perfectly suited to the FSF's 
principal products, namely gcc and emacs.

Both are "free" programs that are usually used and installed by technically
sophisticated programmers.  Furthermore, they are designed to be usable on a
very wide variety of CPUs and operating systems.  Because of these two
circumstances, the free availablility of source code, and of any changes made
to the code for local modifications, contribute substantially to the quality
and viability of the product.

Have you ever heard of a compiler that works on as many systems as gcc?


The success of the GPL in these two cases, doesn't mean that it should be
the model for copyrights of all computer programs ever created, however, and
thus I disagree with the overall goals behind GNU manifesto.  I agree with
their position with regard to software patents, though.


It's clear that where the GPL is a good idea, it will succeed.  Where it
isn't, it won't, so I'm not really worrying about the GNU 'virus' infecting the
world, even if I disagree with it's intentions.	

This is NOT the case with an out-out-of control patent system.  Some people
recognize this, and have written letters to Congress in protest.  I don't
think anybody's seriously asked Congress to eliminate copyright for computer
programs.

So things are working out for the best, to some approximation.

: Jesse Perry   jesse@franklin.com   uunet!frnkmth!jesse


Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu