🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> writes:

  Tim> fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk (Donal K. Fellows) writes:

  Tim> 	[I note your pathetic attempt to misdirect this to
  Tim> alt.flame...  pity it failed.]

  >> In article <m3aej8vjf3.fsf@thyme.td.micromuse.co.uk>, Tim Haynes
  >> <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote: > The Debian philosophical
  >> pages seem to address this a bit - as an > O.S. developer, do you
  >> want commercial s/ware to steal your code? - > so a browse around
  >> <http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/free> might be > amusing.  But
  >> who is there to fight for the open-source model when > its
  >> licenses are violated?
  >> 
  >> Some of us prefer to put the emphasis on Open, and feel that the
  >> GPL is way too restrictive.  Something to do with not having a
  >> dog-in-a- -manger attitude?

  Tim> Well thanks for answering the question. Er, not. Obviously you
  Tim> don't know what 'Open' as applied to 'Open Source' means in the
  Tim> first place, as the GPL doesn't seem particularly restrictive
  Tim> to me.

        Im sure that he does know what "open" means. Its quite 
simple.

        There has been a long running argument in the free software
community, about whether software should be free for all to use (which
is akin to public domain, even if it is not actually public
domain). Or whether something more restrictive like GPL is
correct, which restricts modifications and release under anything
other than GPL. 

        There are arguments to be had for both side. My own believe is
that GPL unfortunate but necessary. It uses copyright and licensing to
fight fire, with fire as it were, and helps to ensure that software
remains free in the future. The other argument goes that if we want to
make software free, it should be for others to modify as they choose,
and to do with as they choose. 

        Phil