Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond
From: diamond@csl.sony.JUNET (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: The GNU license.
Message-ID: <10596@riks.csl.sony.JUNET>
Date: 24 Jul 89 05:07:18 GMT
Reply-To: diamond@csl.sony.co.jp (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 21
References:

Why do gnu copyleft provisions cause so much confusion?

Anyone with a sense of ethics, if producing software for sale, will
pay other software-for-sale producers for all of their tools.  Even
for emacs.

Too bad ethics are so rare.

There is only one case where the copyleft provision is a problem.
If someone wants to produce truly public domain software but does not
volunteer the effort to keep providing copies of source [even if he
can be paid for volunteering that effort], it seems to me that if such
a person uses free tools, he is still being ethical.  Unfortunately
copylefted tools are not free in this case.

--
-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp@relay.cs.net)
  The above opinions are inherited by your machine's init process (pid 1),
  after being disowned and orphaned.  However, if you see this at Waterloo or
  Anterior, then their administrators must have approved of these opinions.