🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jan12.035558.10335@Sandelman.OCUnix.on.ca> mcr@Sandelman.OCUnix.on.ca (Michael Richardson) writes:
>In article <1992Jan10.023251.15217@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>>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.
>
>  The people writing copyleft'ed software don't have to make it
>copyleft. Even if I write XYZApp and build and compile it with bison

Quite true.  I'm just suggesting that if there were an alternative
standard copyright people might use it instead.

...GM, Ford, President, nationalities and other strange stuff...

>  Yes. We/they using the systems of software hoarding to make sure
>that the software hoarders can't hoard our/their software. [I

That's a real important "/" there.  GPL ensures both.  Me, I'm
perfectly happy with just the "our" part.  I'm merely suggesting
that I might not be the only one.

...Amiga, land-developers, IBM, Radio...

>  Worse, people that wish to take public code and restrict it so
>they can sell it (rather than their service), are saying that they
>deserve a monopoly on selling this code. Fine, I'll willing to grant

That certainly isn't what I've been saying.

...WinterP, SGI sockets, Bad X Servers, customer support, Turbo...

>created. The copyleft prevents people from using your code without
>consulting you. 
I'm merely pointing out that it does quite a bit more than that.  If
that additional restriction is what you want, then fine, we have
no argument.

-- 
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.