🚀 go-pugleaf

epstein@sunc2.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes:
> not.  Your example is that you sometimes let people have for free
> stuff you wrote originally for proift.  My comments were about someone
> wanting to have free access to code, but wanting to be able to have
> more restrictive control of code they develop from that code (in other
> words, no one can restrict stuff from them, but they can restrict
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> stuff from others).

I don't think anyone's taking up the position you are arguing against.
I'm saying that people are entirely free to restrict stuff from my use or
not, as they like.  However, if they allow me to use something with some
of my own code, *I* would like to be able to make the decision about whether
*my* code should be restricted or not.  They can choose whether *their*
code is restricted or not.

The GPL doesn't work this way.  If I take some of my code and some GNU code
and build a program, the GPL tells me that *my* code suddenly has to 
be under the GPL. This is what I object to. If all it said was that 
the GNU code had to stay under the GPL, that would be fine.

I'm also pointing out that truly free software is more useful to more people
than GNU software, and that it's misleading to call GNU software "free".


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