🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4NOV199101065889@minnie.me.udel.edu>, johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
> What I object to are the assertions that CopyLefted software can
> be sold commercially.  This is a case in which GNU is trying to 
> "have it's cake and eat it too".  

Can you please cite this assertion? And can you please stop changing
your terms? In your former article
(<3NOV199114383049@minnie.me.udel.edu>) you wrote

> If you want to guarantee that the
> code will be unavailable for commercial use, then CopyLeft it.

The term you changed is `usage.' First, you wrote of `usage,' now you
write on `selling.' Such statements as `GNU source is off-limits to
anyone who plans to write commercial software' (which you made in
<3NOV199113581633@minnie.me.udel.edu>) are not usable, because they
do not differentiate enough.

So, please look at the following statements and think of them/reply
to them. (And note that they do not only react on your specific
postings, these are reactions to the bulk of postings you did the
last week.)

 1. To `use software' does not only mean that you incorporate this source
    in your programs. It may also be that you use GNU Emacs for
    typing, gcc -Wall for compiling, gdb for debugging, and that
    you sell your created software afterwards. I would be happy if
    commercial C compilers are at the same stability level as gcc...

 2. If GNU software is really not usable for commercial companies,
    why do companies like NeXT, DG, HP, DEC, etc., distribute GNU
    software? Why is the OSF cc derived from gcc?
	Please explain this.

 3. I agree with you that someone who wants to sell his program should
    not use the GPL. (After all, his software will not be free.) But
    please explain me, why is he/she not allowed to use the GNU tools?
    Why is he not allowed to incorporate the stuff distributed under
    the GLPL? Ok, he must supply linkable object modules for his non-free
    part and the source of the GLPL part, -- but where's the problem?

 4. If someone releases his source code under the GPL, he can of
    course sell an other version of his program. This other version
    may have a better user interface and other value-added stuff.
	Isn't it INGRES which is available over the net and which
    is sold in newer versions?

--
Joachim
Darmstadt, Germany
<schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de>