🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jan16.080040.27933@Sandelman.OCUnix.on.ca> mcr@Sandelman.OCUnix.on.ca (Michael Richardson) writes:
>In article <1992Jan14.042351.11637@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>>Quite true.  I'm just suggesting that if there were an alternative
>>standard copyright people might use it instead.
>
>  I'm not sure I understand this. There are basically three
>variations:  
>  a) I own all rights, and license people to do certain things.
>(normal commerical software, and ask-me-first freely-redistributable)
>  b) I give up all rights (PD)
>  c) I retain rights and license everyone to do everything except remove
>these rights from others. (GPL)
>
>  Granted there might be other usefull variations, but I have yuet to
>hear them.

How many times do I have to post this proposal?
    I own all rights, you can do anything you want with it, if you
    modify my portion then make the changes available to me.
Details of course have to be worked out.  The question is whether
the basic concept is more acceptable to commercial vendors and
to people currently using the GPL.

>  
>>...GM, Ford, President, nationalities and other strange stuff...
>
>  But the are important. The GPL and FSF is about competitive service
>rather than monopolistic price grouging and software hoarding.
If you think they are important then repost them in an intelligible,
non-rambling manner.  I'm sorry, but I couldn't make head or tail
of the argument, I almost didn't bother replying at all.

>
>>>  Yes. We/they using the systems of software hoarding to make sure
>>>that the software hoarders can't hoard our/their software. [I
>>
>>That's a real important "/" there.  GPL ensures both.  Me, I'm
>>perfectly happy with just the "our" part.  I'm merely suggesting
>>that I might not be the only one.
>
>  What? The GPL doesn't apply to anyone's code that doesn't want it
>to. If you use someone else's code, you must live by whatever
>restrictions they put on it. The '/' used is because I'm attempting
>not to put words in FSF's mouth, but still express an opinion that I
>believe that they share. 
What I'm saying is that I have no objection to the clause which
says that I can't hoard your software, it's the clause which
says that I can't hoard mine either.  That's legislating morality.
It's perfectly legit if that's what you believe in, but I think
it's hurting the industry and the public now - and I'm not sure
there's going to *be* a later in the Unix market.

>>>  Worse, people that wish to take public code and restrict it so
>>>they can sell it (rather than their service), are saying that they
>>>deserve a monopoly on selling this code. Fine, I'll willing to grant
>>
>>That certainly isn't what I've been saying.
>
>  BUT! If you want to have totally unrestricted code, you need PD
Please read what I've been saying.


>>>created. The copyleft prevents people from using your code without
>>>consulting you. 
>>I'm merely pointing out that it does quite a bit more than that.  If
>
>  Like what? Give me some evidence.
Read the GPL.

-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
617/497-2922                    |       info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.