🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5NOV199101524978@minnie.me.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

[A long article that makes a lot of points.  I'd like to address one
particular aspect of CopyLeft that Mr. Johnston comments on.  I don't
think these quotes are out of context.]

>However, the use of CopyLefted source code in a new software 
>project does require that the CopyLeft be carried forward into 
>the new project.  This means that many programmers will not
>be able to use this code as the basis for new work;  not just
>those whose want to write commercial software, but any programmer
>whose client requires clear copyright in the finished project.
>For example, many academics have grants that require that the 
>product of the funded project be placeable in the public domain.
>
>Publicly available source code has traditionally played a significant
>role in such projects.  Examples are to be found on internet ftp
>sites all over the world.  It is a mechanism for preserving and 
>sharing the value of one's programming effort that has served us well.
>
>If one opposes the notion of software intellectual property,
>the logical response is to refuse to assert rights accruing 
>from intellectual property;  one can place one's work in the 
>public domain.  This means that EVERYBODY can use it, not just
>those whose employers are enlightened enough to permit them to
>work on projects that can be CopyLefted.
[...]
>The only objection I have made is that everything the GPL does
>to ensure that rights to use source code is unrestricted, is 
>accomplished more effectively by releasing the source code to
>the public domain.  The CopyLeft is added baggage that serves a
>political agenda without furthering people's freedom to use
>the CopyLefted code.

There are other reasons to use CopyLeft besides a "political agenda."

I'm in the midst of writing a subroutine library that implements a
small message-passing, state-machine oriented, multitasking kernel
that can run on a PC or as a process in a multitasking environment.

There is a chance that other people would be able to use something
like this.  When I'm done, I'll consider making it publicly available.

I could just put it in the public domain, but I can forsee the
possibility of some unpleasentness.  What if some software company out
there uses my code in a program that they sell commercially?

Boy, will I feel stupid.  I'm in the position of a musician who writes
a Christmas song and releases it to the public domain, so that
carolers and school choirs can use it, only to discover that someone
has recorded a single and is making big money from it.  Here's someone
making money off of work, and I have no way to stop it.

Unless I use CopyLeft.

With CopyLeft, I can do a good deed by giving away my work, without
worrying that someone else will take advantage of my good will.

I realize that my concerns go beyond ensuring that the right to use
source code is unrestricted.  In fact, there is one particular use of
source code that I definitely want to restrict.  However, I don't
think there is any political agenda involved.
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616