🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Zk02eB14w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:
> carlton@husc8.harvard.edu (david carlton) writes:
>> In article <FZ4ueB49w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030)

>> > That's not true either.  If I write a program which includes some GNU
>> > software and distribute it with source for only the GNU bits, then I'm not
>> > distributing GNU software in ways the FSF dislikes.  Yet I'm not allowed
>> > to do that.

>> If they don't let you distribute (bits of) their software that way,
>> why do you assume that it is a way of distributing their software that
>> they don't dislike?

> They don't care if I distribute a couple of routines taken from a GNU program
> under the GPL, if I do so in order to use them with some other routines
> under the GPL.  Why when the status of the other non-GNU-sourced routines
> is changed does the objection suddenly start?

Presumably because they want other people to distribute software under
the GPL, with the longer-term goal of making all software free.
However, whether or not those are their real motives, my point still
remains that if they are forbidding you to use software in a certain
way then they have probably done that because it is a way which they
dislike, else they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of forbidding it.
(Indeed, they would seem to dislike some ways in which they permit
software to be used - the GLPL, I believe, says as much in its
preamble.)

david carlton
carlton@husc.harvard.edu

       I hope something GOOD came in the mail today so I have a REASON
       to live!!