🚀 go-pugleaf

baud@kepler.eedsp.gatech.edu (Kurt Baudendistel) writes:

> If you want to produce software that will remain free-of-encumbrance,
>                                           ------
> you must do something to it (like the copyleft). PD software can be
> taken and used in any way that someone wants, including locking it up
> in a proprietary package and reselling it without source code.

Nonsense.  This is getting to be one of those GNU/FSF pseudo-tenets that
has to be repeated frequently to keep people believing it.  If you put
software in the PD--or better yet, put a "freely redistributable" copy-
right on it--it is NOT locked up!  You, and anyone who agrees with you, may
continue to distribute it as you wish.

The situation where some folks receive source for software you've written
but don't redistribute it can happen with copylefted software just as
easily as with PD or freely-redistributable.  The difference only comes
where the original software is used as the basis for derivative software.

> The term ``minimally-encumbered'' might be better, but this drops use of
> the word ``free'', so I'll stick with free-of-encumbrance and make sure
> to tell people that this actually means minimally-encumbered.

This is intellectually dishonest.  I understand your desire to attach the
word "free" to what's going on, since it's a Good Word and begets Good
Feelings.  But you've just admitted that it's not the correct word.

There are circumstances where benign control is appropriate; this may be
one of them.  But benign control is NOT the same as freedom.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...Simpler is better.