🚀 go-pugleaf

entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <RwJBFB4w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:
>>But the GNU system is not going to be restriction-free.  It is going to
>>be plastered with copyrights and General Public Licenses.
>
>Whine whine whine.
>No one is stopping you from buying a commercial OS, no one is stopping
>you from writting a PD OS.
>
>You want to have your cake and eat it to, someone gives you a
>car for free on the one condition that you give it away when you
>no longer need it, is it reasonable to complain that they are
>depriving you of income you should "rightfully" earn by selling
>the car?

That doesn't sound reasonable to me.  But then, *you* are the only
one saying it.	What's the point of making this straw man argument?

The closest claim I've seen to what you are saying (and it's a
long stretch) is, GNU code would benefit more people if the GPL
didn't require derivative works to also be GPL'ed.

>There is a very good reason to put things under the GNU public
>license, take a look at the header files in Ultrix, then
>download the BSD source from uunet.  DEC took something Berkeley
>gave away for free and then restricted it.

Doesn't Berkeley continue to give their code away?  So then, DEC
actually hasn't restricted it at all.  (How could they?  It isn't
theirs.)  If you want it, go get it.

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