🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jan14.075650.4337@ajfcal.cuc.ab.ca>, tony@ajfcal.cuc.ab.ca (Tony Field) writes:
>
>The GNU folk tend to develop packages that I could consider to be
>"operating system software".

GNU is an operating system.  It follows that most GNU work is OS
software.

>The group that "disagrees" with the GNU philosophy tend to be people
>developing "application software" (not operating system software).

But GNU's just one project of the FSF, and the FSF philosophy doesn't
just apply to OS software.

>For
>example, we develop graphic software for use by Geologists. This, I
>assume, is an area of software that GNU does not choose to explore. Quite
>possibly, GNU does not wish to develop any "application" software (by
>which I mean packages such as General Accounting systems, word
>processors, petroleum engineering data bases, etc.).

Mostly true, but again, the *FSF* does not limit its scope to OS
software.  And even GNU is dabbling in application software with the
oleo spreadsheet.

>I have no objection to providing "free" operating system software to the
>computing community and have done so on a few occasions - however I would
>be extremely reluctant to even consider making my geological software
>"freely distributable" since my competition would have access to my
>tricks.

So you support free software when it doesn't threaten you personally.
That's fair enough.  What would your competition do with your software
if it was available under the GPL, though?  If they included it in
theirs, it would have to be distributed under the GPL too, and you'd
have access to their software.  So now it's not so much a question of
the functionality of the software as it is a question of who can
better market and support the software.  And of course the developer
of a package has all the advantages.  He can plan a marketing strategy
and develop a support mechanism before releasing the product.  By the
time the competition can get going, the next version will be ready.

>In many cases, they have more $$$ available and could immediately
>add my software's features to their products. By issuing my sources under
>the GNU license, I would cause the death of my company since I do not
>have the income of many of my competitors - in spite of the fact that I
>might have a better product.

Your company would have to change to emphasize support and continuing
development, rather than capitalizing indefinitely on the secrecy of
the source code.  That's *if* the competition chooses to incorporate
your code in its product and distribute its own under the GPL, which
it may well not want to do.

>I guess the real problem is that of balance: If I use the GNU edition of
>getopt() because it has a few nice features, is it reasonable to subject
>my entire software offering to the GNU license agreement?

Yep.

>I kind of wish
>that it would be considerd adquate for me to include credits to GNU on
>the introduction pages of my hard copy manuals.

Wish all you want--it won't change the way the FSF works.

--
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	              We have many things in common
Martin Marietta Energy Systems                Name three.
Workstation Support                                                 -R.E.M.