Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: boosting libg++ (was Re: g++ vs. cfront 2.0 in the Real World)
Message-ID: <6590198@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 14 Jul 89 18:03:46 GMT
References: <318@gt-eedsp.gatech.edu>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 29

>You are suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding:  that the FSF's main
>objective is to give away its software.  Wrong.  The FSF's primary goal
>is to make *you* give away *your* software.  The bait is all the FSF
>goodies; the hook inside is the requirement that you adopt FSF's beliefs
>on software distribution.  The fact that you can nibble on some of the
>bait without touching the hook is not an inconsistency; it's a free
>sample to lure you into the candy store.  There is nothing unrealistic or
>inconsistent about FSF's behavior, and hoping for changes in this is
>foolish -- this is a religious issue that goes straight to the heart of
>FSF's real motives.

I don't agree with these motives, but its a free country, and if Stallman
wants to stick to this, thats his problem.  I believe Stallman's approach
only leads to more software hoarding, since I cannot afford to freely 
distribute software that then FSF sticks their copyleft on -- preventing
my future use of derivatives of my own software.  So Stallman does to us 
what he'd prevent others from doing to him.  But that's his problem.

I do have a problem however, with people who use my money to support Stallman's
goals.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe libg++ was developed with 
the help of MCC, which in turn is supported by corporate money from many of
the large computer companies.  Similarly, OOPS was developed at NIH with
all our tax dollars, and legally should not be restricted.  And many other
C++ libraries are developed at universities with government grant money
that also precludes restrictions placed on their use.

So let Stallman place his copyleft on software developed by FSF directly --
but not on software developed with your or my money.  This is where I believe
the line is crossed.