Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!eutrc3!euteal!mart From: mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: The GNU Public License Message-ID: <99@euteal.ele.tue.nl> Date: 2 Aug 89 07:56:46 GMT References: <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <98@euteal.ele.tue.nl> <1463@l.cc.purdue.edu> Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Lines: 27 In article <1463@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >I am in no way associated with FSF, but I support the idea of software >which the user can modify easily. I think it should be simpler and more >powerful, and somewhat less user-inimical. I would object to a car being >programmed in such a way that it could select a path to a destination and >not let me override that path. Your analogy is rather useless. What you actually mean is: When I buy a car and its performance does not suit me, I can take my toolbox and start improving it. Unlike many other posters, I can't subscribe the opinion that having the sources is necessary because the software is usually bad. I've worked on several computers (HP, DEC, Apollo, Alliant, Sun) for a number of years and for most of my activities (program development, reasearch, text processing) the utilities provided are more than sufficient. I really don't need the diff sources or the compiler sources. I assume people who are into operating systems and stuff like that want to make changes in the operating system sources but how many people are into such things? Mart van Stiphout Eindhoven University of Technology Email: mart@euteal.ele.tue.nl