🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jan10.212229.22053@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
seeing GLPL as a problem
>Both directly and indirectly.  Directly because it introduces administrative
>overhead and costs.  I believe we can charge to cover those costs, but the
>time is still hard to replace.

I can't see why providing unlinked versions of the files should
introduce any unacceptable costs. And these costs can be charged, as
you said. 

>terribly onnerous, just annoying.  However the indirect problem is bigger.
>The companies that financed us, being big old companies with large law
>staffs, would never have stood for such a restriction on the source that
>they got.  So the option is not an option.  In general, the bigger the
>company the harder and more expensive this becomes.

Hmm, maybe I understand you. Big old companies and especially lawyers
often seem to have problems with their stone-aged opinions. But I
think these problems are more due to the opinions mentioned above, not
GLPL itself. If someone (or some company) has problems accepting the
(in MY opinion) rather generous terms of GLPL, he may as well do the
work himitself and I don't feel a bit sorry for it.

	Mika