Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sure, but where does the infection thing come in? Suppose RMS > publishes a new library call add-42, whose api is add-42, inputs n, > outputs n+42, source left as an exercise, and Kenny decides he can use > it, it is great. Now if Kenny uses it in his commercial software,
commercial software can be free as well, such as the GNU Ada compiler. > add-42 does not somehow become less free to ride 'neath the starry > skies above, don't fence me in. But RMS wants Kenny's hide. Nothing > Kenny wrote derived from add-42, but RMS wants it all. that's because it's immoral not to give it all > Kenny happened > to solve the traveling salesman problem and protein-folding and passed > the fricking Turing test by using add-42 wherever he needed 42 added > to a number, and RMS wants credit and ownership and control of it > all. He and his license shall now dictate access and use of all that > code. The handcuffs are on, and they are inscribed "free". of course they are free > > No wonder the GPL has gone nowhere. Freely. RMS reasonably wanted that > add-42 not get co-opted, but that in no way necessitated the land grab > that is GPL. The GPL is a gratuitous reach only fancifully justified > by wanting to ensure that open source remain open. which is necessary in a moral culture. Only an immoral culture may accept non-disclosure > So this has nothing > to do with freedom in /any/ sense of the word, it has to do with a > political agenda opposed to the idea of private property. > private property is unethical Klaus Schilling -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
