🚀 go-pugleaf

Over the years, I have held many different opinions about the FSF and
the GNU Public License.  My current one is very simple: I have no problem
with the GNU Public License or the Free Software Foundation's policies.
I do not think that the GPL is an effective approach for all pieces of
software across of of spacetime, and such I diagree with some of the
positions in "The GNU Manifesto," but that's a separate issue.

I'll be frank; I disagree with RMS's political position.  I do not
think that all software should be free.  I do however, think that
it should certainly be possible to *build* free software, if you so
desire.  Because of this, I fully support FSF's right to distribute
software under the GPL, and thus mandate that any work done on it
beyond personal hacks remain public.  GNU Emacs, for example, is one
of the most successful cooperative ventures in this entire industry,
principally because all concerned know that no one "take it private"
and profit by other people's effort.  This "commercial safety" allows
even notoriously capitalistic companies to contribute to the effort,
without the fear that someone else will sue them or that their expense
will profit someone else.  GCC is shaping up to be a similar kind of
thing.  All of this is happening with very few lawyers getting involved.
This is A Good Thing.

The one area in which I disagree with the GNU Manifesto is the idea
that *all* software should be covered by similar terms.  However,
neither the GPL or the Free Software Foundation can require you to
put software under the GPL unless you choose to.  People may argue
with you, but the GPL won't go around infecting your software by
itself :).

I guess my position is pretty simple at this point: I am willing to
deal with GNU software on its own terms, and other software on *its*
terms.  Some software is free, and some's not.  What's the big
problem?

--
Amanda Walker
Visix Software Inc.