🚀 go-pugleaf

   Date: 1 May 90 03:23:04 GMT
   From: williamt@athena1.Eng.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow)

[stuff about taxes deleted -- I don't know and have no wish to muddy
 the waters]

#define he she/he

	   Of course the other part of this is denying someone just 
   compensation for his work just because he has linked with g++ libraries
   or _even_ used a subroutine of GNU source code.  If someone developed
   an application that was 20K lines long, and linked it with 450 lines of
   GNU source code, is it equitable for him to get nothing for his work?

Strictly speaking the GPL doesn't address injustice.  The Gnu
Manifesto claims to, but that's not what we're discussing here, and
personally the subject has little interest for me (in the software
context -- it's not life threatening).

After all, it's a shame that people who write poor programs (or poor
books for that matter) don't eat either.  If you feel that someone
somehow has a right to eat there are better ways to address it than
flaming on usenet like you and I are!

Anyway, if a person developed an application and wants to use ANY
piece of code he must abide by that piece of code's license
conditions.  If he doesn't like them, he can do the work himself
(except in an environment which allows the dread software patent).

   To say yes would be like denying an author (or writer) compensation
   for a book he had written because he quoted a public domain text
   on page 37.  That does not seem right.

Well, the gnu stuff is not public domain.  It has a license.  So your
analogy doesn't hold.  What you're really trying to say is that the
copyright code should include a software provision equivalent to the
one which says you may cite a small part of a text, with attribution,
under certain provisions.  Until the legislature clarifies this, the
answer is that you may only `quote' (ie include) under the license
conditions.

   Do you think such a writer will be able to afford his next meal
   or otherwise be able to afford to write anything in the future?  To
   deny him the right to earn a living seems rather harsh.

Let's see -- it's been quite some time since I wrote a line of
proprietary code.  You have probably never met me but let me assure
you my lifestyle is hardly ascetic!  Now this won't necessarily work
for everyone, but it is an existance proof that it's possible to live
comfortably working on free software.

People often use copyright protection as some sort of price support to
keep salaries artificially high (because so many people are employed
re-inventing the wheel).  It's that kind of socialist bullshit that
led me to support Free Software in the first place.  Maybe some
salaries will fall (personally I doubt it) but perhaps they were
artificially propped up in the first place?

							    BTW, the 450
   lines represents the approximate length of the bison parser text
   that is included with a user source program -- I am only estimating
   from the code included by yacc.  The 20K lines could be from an
   interpreter or editor that the user has developed.

You know, people keep bitching about how `trivial' these paltry lines
are.  If they're so trivial then an incredible amount of bandwidth
could have been saved had someone just sat down and written a PD
replacement.  It probably would have taken less time than the
aggregate bitching time.  If it bothers you, perform a public service
and write a replacement -- or pay me my standard consulting rate to do
it for you.  Until someone pays me to change things, I'm happy with
how they are.