🚀 go-pugleaf

ryan@ra.cs.umb.edu (Daniel R. Guilderson) writes:

>In article <16758.Jul419.46.5591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:

>   We're talking about software that isn't distributed widely, right?
>   Those of you who are arguing that the GPL works reasonably well for such
>   software: have you considered that the GPL is absolutely pointless for
>   such software? Nobody benefits from putting the GPL on specialized code.
>   None of the reasons for the GPL make sense for specialized code. Does
>   anyone see a valid reason to limit or waive copyrights in this case?

>How do you figure it's pointless.  The GPL prevents hoarders who
>originally thought there software would not be widely distributed,
>from later deciding that it can be more widely distributed as a
>proprietary program.  The GPL doesn't hurt anybody so I argue it is
>pointless to leave it off of specialized code.

What do you mean "the GPL doesn't hurt anybody"?  If you put the GPL
on specialized software, the authors of the software will not recover
their cost.  Once they see that, they will not write the software
in the first place.  Then the customers will not be able to get the
software they want.  So both the would be authors and their customers
are hurt.

How about thinking before posting this nonsense?

--	
	by Miron Cuperman <miron@cs.sfu.ca>