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
