🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <a54ueB50w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:
> carlton@husc8.harvard.edu (david carlton) writes:
>> In article <uZ4oeB12w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrib

>> > No, I don't really agree with the goals either.  The FSF's goal is
>> > to eliminate commercial software distribution.  Mine is to provide
>> > an alternative, compete by being better, and allow people to choose.

>> This last sentence is, of course, exactly what the FSF is doing.

> Why, then, if I write a program including some GNU code, does the FSF
> tell me what I'm allowed to do with *my* code, not just with *its* code?
> Fine, the FSF can choose how its software is distributed.  I want to choose
> how mine is distributed.

That is part of their alternative.  They are still trying to compete
by being better, they are still allowing people to choose whether or
not to use their code and software.  This choice has some strings
attached, but that doesn't make it less of a choice.

Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you meant by "allow people
to choose".  I assumed that you meant between choose between using
your code and using some other code (or not using any code at all);
but your comments seem to imply that by "choose" you mean "decide to
use code which is completely unrestricted", a meaning for the word
which I confess I am not familiar with.  Just what did you mean?

david carlton
carlton@husc.harvard.edu

       UH-OH!!  I put on ``GREAT HEAD-ON TRAIN COLLISIONS of the
       50's'' by mistake!!!