🚀 go-pugleaf

>   	Wrong. Some of the code I write is intended to be completely
>   sharable, to EVERYONE.
>
>No, once your code has been incorporated into a commercial product,
>*that copy* becomes nonsharable.  It doesn't matter that the public
>domain version is still sharable, someone has made a copy that cannot
>be shared.

I believe the point is that given a product with sharable source code
(say a spreadsheet).  Person A makes major improvements to the product
(adds powerful options).  Person B does the same.  The difference is
that Person A makes his improvements sharable while Person B does not.
The effect is that Person B derives benefit from Person A's work
while the reverse is not the case.  A product sole by Person B would
have the benefit of improvements by two people while a product sold
by Person A has only his own improvements.   Person B is acting as a 
parasite.  The FSF believes this is wrong.  

In a commercial license, the licensee agrees not to share his copy of 
the program with anyone.  If a potential licensee finds this and other 
conditions acceptable, then he purchases the product.  The GPL has a 
condition that any improvements that you make to their product also 
be freely redistributable.  If a potential licensee finds this condition 
acceptable, he uses the product. GPL does absolutely NOTHING to 
commercial licenses.  It merely gives potential licensees additional 
CHOICE.  What can possibly be offensive about giving choice to someone?  

Also remember, in most commercial licenses, you are not given the option 
of getting source.  You can not modify what you don't have.  In GPL, you 
are given the source.  Thus, you have the option of making modifications.  
If you find offensive the fact that your changes must be redistributable, 
then don't make changes.  In this respect the commercial license and the
GPL is identical.  In one you can not make changes (lack of source) in
the other you will not (having your own code redistributable is offensive).
What is the big deal?

Let us take the possibility that you have a source license to a product
(i.e. ATT UNIX).  You are free to make improvements.  Your code can
be under any license you choose.  Remember, however, that in order to
be useful to anyone, a person using your code must have access to
UNIX source (if he doesn't, then you didn't need the source either.  An
example is someone who writes a spreadsheet).  Thus, a prerequisite for
your licensee is a UNIX source license.  Thus, effectively ATT propagates
their license.  Is this any different from GPL?


--
Blockley Hall, 4th floor|                    Conway Yee, N2JWQ
418 Service Drive       |yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)
Philadelphia, PA 19104  |cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)
(215) 662-6780          |yee@bnlx26.nsls.bnl.gov    (rarely checked)