🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul1.000732.13640@eedsp.gatech.edu> baud@kepler.eedsp.gatech.edu.UUCP (Kurt Baudendistel) writes:
}[This is a follow-on to a discussion of Richard Stallman's commentary
} on the LGPL.]
}
}Raul <rockwell@socrates.umd.edu> writes:
}}Variety is fun.
}
}More importantly, this variety in viewpoint is necessary. Think of it
}as a political spectrum: public domain on one side, proprietary software on
}the other, and the copyleft attempting to meld the best aspects of the two.
}
}I prefer the meld! 
}
}1. It protects my rights as a software consumer, since when I buy 
}   copylefted software, I always really get it---source code and all to
}   do with as I wish. 
}   
}   There are no restrictions on my use of the code I buy,
}   except those necessary to keep it free from restrictions.
}
}2. It protects my rights as a software producer, since when I produce
}   copylefted software, no one can expropriate it for their own personal
}   gain---no one can incorporate it into a proprietary product and make
}   money off it. 
}   
}   Someone could incorporate it into a copylefted product and try to make 
}   money, but then I could just buy that product and sell it myself if
}   I so desired.

i prefer the one side with public domain software on it. i personally don't
believe in the copyleft but have not qualms with those who use it. considering
the times, i understand why they would use it. however, there is such a
thing as the US Dept of Copyright (or US Copyright Office or whatever). i'm
quite sure that by registering your program with them you will gain protection
against the "thieves". all the programs i create for my lovely apple iigs i
make PD, with source code included.

just because you get software with the copyleft doesn't immediately give you
sourc code. yes, this is mandated by the copyleft, but if the authors never
wanted to release the code in the first place you wouldn't see the copyleft.
there is NO difference between copyleft sofware and PD software+source. except
of course the copyleft agreement. but this is merely a legality.

}
}Other folks may prefer some other place in the intellectual-property
}spectrum. That's their right and duty, in my mind, to take such a stand.
}
}If you are strictly a consumer, you will prefer the public domain.
}If you are strictly a producer, you will prefer proprietary software.
}
}However, no one is really just a consumer or just a producer, except
}for home-hackers, who produce nothing, and NIH people, who consume 
}nothing. So, almost everyone is, or should be, interested in exploring the
}middle ground in software licensing.
}

since when do home-hackers create nothing?

} [stuff deleted...]
}
}-- 
}Kurt Baudendistel --- GRA
}Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering, Atlanta, GA  30332
}internet: baud@eedsp.gatech.edu         uucp: gatech!gt-eedsp!baud

albert chin