🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Nov5.230830.14412@midway.uchicago.edu>, goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes...
> 
>Note that I am not calling FSF software a pile of crap.  And in fact, I
>see no reason why the FSF will not have beneficial impact on the indus-
>try.  I admire, in a very real way, the goals of the FSF (aka SELSF),
>and hope they succeed.  Their work is top-notch, and they are nothing
>if not interesting people (at least from my e-mail perspective).  The
>world could do with a few more FSF types.

[...]

>Go FSF!

Hear, hear!  The work that FSF is doing to promote the distribution 
and further development of free software is a wonderful thing. 

>About GNU stuff in PD software:  Its rediculous to have to parcel out
>software, and label it as GNU copylefted.  In many cases, I'd like to
>intermingle it with my code in ways that would mean line-by-line separa-
>tion, or at least an attempt at subcategorization of files into GNU-
>influenced, and "pure PD."  This is a pile of crap, and no one should
>have to do this with *truly* unrestricted (aka "free") software.

Let me add just a couple of points.

First, if GNU source were made available on a truly free basis, it would 
still be possible to include a statement describing the benefits of free
software, and suggesting that people who make improvements voluntarily
make them available to the public through the auspices of a non-CopyLefting
Free Software Foundation. 

I think that most programmers would still consider it a matter of honor
and good taste to pass along their contributions, that is, to support the
"spirit" of the CopyLeft on a voluntary basis -- responding to the "good
example" set by FSF -- rather than to a legal instrument that attempts 
to mandate the practice of distributing source with software.

(This makes practical sense as well, because it is not likely that FSF 
will ever have the resources or inclination to *enforce* CopyLeft through
the expensive mechanism of the legal system.  This would be too much 
like the tactics that they have criticized publically, and would divert
time and money from creative pursuits.)

But suppose that an individual or company does decide to use GNU code as 
part of a commercial project;  does anyone really lose in such an event?

The source that was borrowed is still available for the rest of us
to use and improve.  It is there as "prior art" to be used in the 
event that a real bad egg decides to try to copyright a program that
merely reproduces a GNU program without adding meaningful improvements.

Note however, that it would be difficult to make money this way, 
because people would soon learn that the same thing was available
for free.  People who buy software aren't stupid;  they don't pay
for something that they can get for free (and better, because the
GNU version comes with source.)


I have a few friends who work as programmers for commercial software 
companies.   I think that they practice an honorable profession.

Occasionally I see questions posted in a ".programmer" newsgroup in
which a commercial developer asks "How can I do XYZ?" or "Does anybody
have a routine that does "XYZ"?  I would like to be able to reply,
"Hey, I've using the this terrific program from the FSF that has
feature XYZ;  you can find a copy of the source code on prep.ai.mit.edu;
maybe it will help you solve your problem."

That programmer is likely to be rather impressed with the idea, 
and will certainly feel more inclined to support FSF in his/her 
spare time than would be the case if it turned out that the code
was CopyLefted and bundled with a manifesto critical of the means 
by which he/she earns a paycheck.  Everybody still wins.

-- Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)