🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul23.235217.2745@eedsp.gatech.edu> baud@eedsp.gatech.edu (Kurt Baudendistel) writes:
>2. Software that is ``free of encumbrances'' is being sold by the FSF and
>   others. This is accomplished by the GNU [Library] General Public License
>   ([GL]GPL) or ``copyleft''.

GNU software is *not* free of encumbrance.  It has instead taken a restriction
that one group of people felt was bad and replaced with a restriction that
another group of people think is bad.  Which is correct is a moral issue
more than anything else.  Don't confuse morals with absolute truth.

>    [ No one to my knowledge actually sells for a real cost any copylefted
>      software, but the important thing is that this is not prohibited!
No one resells BIC pens for $2000, but the important thing is that it's not
prohibited.  What's the point of this argument?  Why is it important?

>      Until Cygnus, no one was making any money off of copylefted software 
>      in any way, so please reserve judgement on this point at least until 
>      someone tries it (or enough time goes by to justify a lack-of argument).
It's been several years, and a number of people who *do* make their living
selling software have pointed out why they haven't adopted the GPL.  How
long do you consider reasonable?

-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
617/497-2922                    |       info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.