🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Mar27.193010.22308@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> coolidge@casca.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes:

   FSF asserts that any program linked with libg++ is covered by the
   copyleft. Morally and legally speaking, this is almost certainly wrong:
   libg++ continues to be covered by the copyleft, and must be distributed
   with source, but the other code comprising the package remains the
   author's property, and they can decide whether or not to offer source
   code. Forcing a waiver of property rights, as the copyleft sometimes
   tries to do, is about as ethically upright as if the car companies were
   to say "any money you make from using our car (sales gained through
   travel, salary from a job you drove to, etc) belongs to us. You choose
   to drive the car...".

One way to look at the copyleft is that it requires royalties equal to
any profit you may have gained if you could have restricted
redistribution of their code.  Apparently you think this is too high a
royalty to pay.  That does not make it "morally and legally wrong".
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])  Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems
Clarkson will be featured on PBS's Computer Chronicles next week.  I'm the dude
with the camcorder taking digital portraits.