🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <NELSON.92Jan10174852@cheetah.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:

> The only people who don't benefit right now are the people who don't want
> their software to remain sharable.

Last time I checked, software developed using the machine that I am on
(a general-purpose student machine at Harvard) could not be sold
without permission.  Therefore, if I want to develop software here, I
can't distribute it under the GPL, though I can, say, distribute it
under something like the GPL except mandating that it cannot be sold.
(Something, I might add, that I may well end up doing in the not _too_
distant future.)  This has the same benefit that the GPL does of
forcing my software to remain sharable; but I can't do it if I use GNU
code.

I will, however deal.  The only code that I'm planning to use falls
under the GLPL, which doesn't present this problem at all.  So I am
not complaining in the slightest.  Just trying to give Russ a hard
time, that's all...

david carlton
carlton@husc.harvard.edu

       Hey, wait a minute!!  I want a divorce!!..  you're not Clint
       Eastwood!!