From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/07/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 258293433 References: <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5pim4l$5m3$1@news.nyu.edu> <5ptv7r$4e2$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5pu5va$64o$1@news.nyu.edu> <5qdof6$iav$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: Institut fuer Neuroinformatik, Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum, Germany Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-07-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ronald Cole writes: > peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes: > > However, it doesn't seem to fit with the ideals of the > > GPL and FSF. > > You may actually be surprised at what Stallman's ideals actually are! > I thought as you did, and pressed Richard about the altruism he > describes in his GNU Manifesto. He told me that "[I was] interpreting > what [he] wrote in a way that is not [his] interpretation." I then > asked him to explain just exactly how he got from "if I like a program > I must share it with other people who like it" to "each person should > be free to decide who not to give a copy to". He never bothered to > reply. In light of this statement from the Manifesto "the desire to > be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world > in general of all or part of that creativity," I think he sold out on > his principles. You are confusing things. Wishing that people would behave in a cooperative way is not equivalent to forcing them to do so. The GPL is there to prevent the use of software contrary to the intentions of the author of it. The act of making a piece of software GPL is a voluntary act of the software author. It does not make sense to attach strings to this which will not help distribution significantly, but scare away authors needlessly. A licence like that should *help* the author in making his software available in a useful way, not burden him or place responsibilities on him. The responsibilities rest with distributors. As long as they comply with the reasonable restrictions, they are free making as much money from it as they want. Which might not be so very much, as competition could chime in legally anytime. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany