🚀 go-pugleaf

epstein@sunc2.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes:
> In <0cHceB10w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes
> >> The only people who don't benefit right now are the people who don't want
> >> to share their software.
> >False.  Those who want their software to be completely free are also unable
> >to benefit.
> 
> Can you elaborate on what you mean by "completely free", and explain
> why these people do not benefit from the GNU license?

By "completely free", I mean free in the conventional sense, rather than
the highly specialized and misleading GNU sense.

free: [...] Open to all comers, [...] unearned, gratuitous; [...] not subject
  to tax, duty, trade-restrictions, or fees; provided without payment; [...]
  (Concise OED).

Example:  Elvis, a text editor modelled on vi.

> You seem to be meaning "completely free" in a sense that includes
> those who would want to control access to the code they write that
> includes code contributed by others.  That makes the software less
> "free", since once it is used by those, it will no longer be free.

Bollocks.  Once software which is completely free is used by those who wish
to control access, it REMAINS completely free.  If Apple grab a copy of
Elvis and release it for profit under a restrictive license, Elvis is still
free.  I can still get source code.

*Derivative* works based on the software are less free than they would be
if the original software were under the GPL.  But it's nonsense to say that
free software becomes less free when it is used by someone who places
restrictions on it.


mathew

-- 
Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices / If
you know where I can buy the CD "In Mysterious Ways" by John Foxx, please send
me email / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! / My PGP RSA public key is
available on request / Desperately seeking CD of "U2" by Negativland / 4 lines