🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jan7.231421.27402@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> epstein@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>I don't see how you have answered Jurgen Botz' questions, i.e.
>basically, how is the GNU license worse than other companies'
>licenses?  If you want/need to use their products so much, then you

I think the major complaint that many people have with the GNU license
is that it's having an adverse affect not on the amount commercial
software (it's intention) but rather on the amount of unencumbered
software.  In other words, most GNU software would have been released
for general use had the GNU license not existed.  It wouldn't have
been sold.

This makes the GNU license seem somewhat counter-productive.  In 
particular, if you believe that the best situation is to make source
available to as many people as possible, it's apparent that GNU is
currently in fact restricting availability.  It is doing so in effect
by boycotting commercial software companies.  They can't make use
of the GNU software in their code.  In that sense GNU is slowing the
rate of advancement.  Now if the boycott is sucessful, then the long
term end will justify the means.  If the boycott is not successful
then it has in fact worked against the general availability of 
source code.

I believe there will always people people who write source code
that they either want people to have, or that it doesn't make
financial sense to try and sell.  And there will always be people
who write commercial software.  And the two overlap (I'm constantly
sending out pieces of my code to help people address X/Motif problems,
and I've released several submodules as well).  I don't see that
the GNU license is having any appreciable affect on commercial
software providers.  Therefore all it is doing is tieing up source
that otherwise would have been more widely available.

Now I understand that some people object to people using their
source in commercial products.  If I wrote an entire package that
I thought was commercial quality (haven't seen too many of those)
I would too.  I don't see how someone who writes a malloc package
or other such minor (although important) utility would object,
but some people do - that's fine.  They can always put in a 
restriction to keep out such commercial use, or better yet, as
is often done, ask that anyone who considers including it 
approach them first - possibly even pay them.  In fact I've found
that even with freely available software, people who are going to
use it in a commercial product usually ask you first.  These
things are all relative.  "Ask me first" gives you control of
the relativity.  *You* get to decide whether someone is using
your software to make lots of money at little expense, or whether
you're just a minor but useful component.  The GNU license offers
no such give-and-take.  It's absolute.  You can't use it in your
commercial software.  End of story.  I can negotiate with a 
shareware/freeware/ask-me/commercial licensee.  I can't negotiate
with a GNU license.

>>I'd much rather that the effort being spent on developing FSF software got
>>spent on developing software that's truly free, so everyone can benefit.
>
>So, who is not benefitting from this setup?
Society.
-- 
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.