🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <o4DigB2w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:
>abraham@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
>> The GPL is an implementation of  "don't give them any assistance."
>
>No, it's an implementation of "don't let them do things a different way
>to the way we do things".  It doesn't say "you can distribute this software
>commercially, but we won't help you do so"; it says "you cannot distribute
>this software commercially".

How does the GPL prevent you from distributing your software your way?
Unless you've gotten help from the FSF (by accepting their offer to let you
use their code as part of your software) it doesn't affect you at all.

You have the choice of accepting their help, in which case you must abide
by their restrictions, or not getting help from the FSF, in which case you
can do what you like.

I think RMS would love to see software copyright and licensing laws changed
so that everything would be free (using RMS's definition of "free").  He
used to campaign for a software tax much like the DAT tax he advocated in a
recent posting.  But in the mean time, he seems to be content to make use
of the existing laws so he can distribute his software his way, and use it
to entice others to join him.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar