🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <iRNaeB6w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes:
>If you link your programs with a library under the GLPL, you have to supply
>object code for your programs.

So what's the problem with this?  How do you lose by allowing your
customers to relink your program with a new version of a new or modified
version of a GNU library?  They still have to go to you for the application
software.

>It puts restrictions on me which other companies' licenses don't, and doesn't
>give me much in return (i.e., all it gives me which commercial licenses
>don't is the right to freely copy other people's software).

It also gives you the source, which many other vendors don't.

>So why do people complain about AT&T licenses, eh?  Same argument applies,
>does it not?

I was under the impression that the biggest problem with AT&T source
licenses is the price (something like $100K, I think).

>I don't use GNU products unless there is no alternative.  However, I feel
>obliged to point out that if people who spend their time writing GNU
>software were to spend their time writing free software instead, everyone
>could benefit.

Not everyone.  The customers of developers who use GNU software would lose,
because they wouldn't get sources.  In the case of developers who use GNU
libraries, their customers wouldn't be able to modify the libraries and
relink.

>One of the arguments put forward in favour of GNU is that it will ensure
>that people don't have to reinvent and reimplement things all the time.
>Yet here you are, saying "If you don't like the way I'm telling you to
>distribute your code, go away and reimplement what I've done."

Well, the assumption underlying the argument is that developers are willing
to use the GNU software.  All you have to do is adopt their philosophy of
code sharing and a large body of software becomes available to you, with
full sources and copying privileges.

Remember, one purpose of the Free Software Foundation and the GNU project
is to get people to adopt this philosophy.  Software development is a means
to this end.

>> So, who is not benefitting from this setup?
>
>People who need to restrict the redistribution of the software they write
>so that they can recoup the money they had to spend in order to write
>it.  People who want to write software which is free of restrictions.

The FSF manages to survive on the income generated from sales of GNU
software tapes, manuals, and some donations, even though it's available
from other sources.

There are other sources of income related to software besides charging for
the bits.

If the purpose of charging for each copy is to recoup your costs, what
happens if you sell more copies than you expected; do you stop charging or
send your customers a refund for their share of the overage?  If not, what
is your justification for keeping the overage?
-- 
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar