🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jan30.192225.18493@ns.network.com>, ddb@ploor.network.com
(David Dyer-Bennet) writes:
> The worst case, that their restrictions prevent me from
> using it for some particular project, are no worse than if they hadn't
> done it at all.

Yes.  Nicely put.  Also, you can at least see the code and decide whether
or not their approach is sound, even if you can't use the code itself...
Unlike AT&T's UNIX source license terms, merely looking at GNU code
won't hurt you.

> I now have a good explanation of why Copyleft is *better* than public
> domain.  Previously, I hadn't been completely sure it was.

Well, I dunno if I'd go that far.  It's different, but it all depends on
what it is you want to do with the material.  I've put code into the
public domain, and in fact *encouraged* people to use it in commercial
products, simply because I'd rather they do it right with my code than
do it over themselves badly.  I might want to buy their program someday :).

I must admit that I oppose software patents, however.  If someone wants
to gain sole advantage of an algorithm, they should simply keep it a
secret.  If they publish it, though, anyone should be able to implement
it.  Grin.  I like copyrights.  I don't like patents.  In fact, I'm a
little uneasy about *any* kinds of patent, but I'm willing to admit that
traditional types do have their good points.  I'm not so convinced with
software patents, especially on algorithms...

[yes, Len, I'll send in my LPF membership soon :) :)]

--
Amanda Walker
Visix Software Inc.