Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!husc6!ginosko!uunet!convex!mozart!csmith
From: csmith@mozart.uucp (Chris Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Borland and other proprietary bloodsuckers (Was: Re: BISON, GCC, and the GNU public license.)
Message-ID: <1493@convex.UUCP>
Date: 7 Aug 89 02:42:25 GMT
References: <Jul.5.09.29.33.1989.23541@topaz.rutgers.edu> <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <68726@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <5559@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: news@convex.UUCP
Reply-To: csmith@convex.com
Lines: 19
In-reply-to: peter@ficc.uu.net's message of 6 Aug 89 14:11:23 GMT

In article <5559@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:

>  Or, for that matter:
>	  c) Charged your royalties on your programs?

For an answer to the unloaded form of this question, you don't have to
look too far.  For a recent example, nethack was posted with this:

   4.  Before you do anything else, please read carefully the file called
       'license' in the auxil subdirectory.  It is expected that you comply
       with the terms of that license, and we are very serious about it.  In
       particular, you are prohibited by the terms of the license from using
       NetHack 3.0 for gainful purposes.   

Or see rec.humor.funny for the "Nobody may make Money off This but Me" rule.

So you can't sell nethack, or enhance it and sell it, or sell gcc or
any modification of it.  Whether you feel this way about the
software you yourself give away or not, why the frenzy?