🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <X1PR524w164w@mantis.co.uk>, Industrial Poet (ip) writes:

ip> I have no problem whatsoever with the GPL being an *alternative*
ip> to other strategies.  What I object to is what I perceive to be
ip> the subtext of the GNU manifesto -- that it should be a
ip> *replacement* for all other strategies.

No, you have things backwards I think. It is explicit in the GM that
the aim is to make ownership of software a thing of the past. The GPL
is just a way to encourage that. Indeed if the aim was realised the
GPL would become meaningless, if the FSF did not have any ownership
rights over, say, emacs they could not possibly enfoce the GPL.

The GPL is a judo throw, it _uses_ the intelectual property laws and
regulations to undermine them.

Given this, it is obvious that there can't be a hidden aim in the GM
to have the GPL be the only distribution startegy, if the aims of the
GM are realised there will be no way to enforce _any_ particular
strategy.

Personally, I like the GPL but don't like the aims of the GM. I also
don't really believe that the GPL is a good way to move towards th
aboltion of IPR, so I am perfectly happy with it. I'd better not say
thet too loud though, if I convince them I lose :-)

--
rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<