🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <uZ4oeB12w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes:

> In <1992Jan15.054742.16385@raven.alaska.edu> floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd 
> Davidson) writes:
>> mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes:
>> >I'm saying that people are entirely free to restrict stuff from my use or
>> >not, as they like.
>> 
>> Whoa.  They are NOT. They are restricting it from your use.  You agreed
>> above that they can and should be able to.  They did.

> OK, so why should I be so excited about the GNU project?  I'm willing to
> give away programs I have written for free.  Yet I'm not allowed to use
> GNU software if I'm going to do so.  That makes it no better than
> commercially licensed software from a free software point of view.

This, as I believe David Wallace pointed out earlier in this thread, is
simply untrue.  Read the GPL and then comment on what it says not what
evil intent you think it might have.  Here is the paragraph relevant to
the above:

  8. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals
of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.


So suppose a person actually take his time and do this.  The following is
hypothetical.

Infant:  "Hey, I want to use FSF software in a program that I want to give away
          for free."

FSF:     "No problem, just follow the instructions in the GNU Public
          License."

Infant:  "No, you don't understand.  I don't want to place any
	  restrictions on the copies I send out, though I do want
          companies to be able to restrict distributions of
          derivatives."

FSF:     "Well, you see, the whole point of the GPL is to legally spell
 	  out that people can't restrict distribution of our software or
	  derivatives in order to encourage more software to be freely
	  distributable.  If you actually want your software to be and
	  continue to be (through derivation) free in this sense, then
	  the GPL is appropriate."

Infant:  "That isn't fair.  Why should you have so much say on what
          others do?"

FSF:     "Didn't you call us?  Aren't you asking to base your software
          on ours and not the other way around?  We don't have to have
          this conversation, but we thought you wanted to discuss ways
	  in which we could find mutually agreeable terms of free
	  distribution."

Infant:  "It's time for my nap.  I have to go."

--
Bob Weiner				   rsw@cs.brown.edu
Whatever it is this disclaims it, except that I said it.
Personalized Information Environments for the people; PIE Mail coming soon.