Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!emory!utkcs2!de5 From: de5@de5.ctd.ornl.gov (Dave Sill) Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell Subject: Re: ksh 11/16/88e now available in AT&T Toolchest Message-ID: <1990Oct2.180301.10897@cs.utk.edu> Date: 2 Oct 90 18:03:01 GMT References: <1990Sep28.205053.16456@cbnews.att.com> <4140@lib.tmc.edu> Sender: news@cs.utk.edu (USENET News System) Reply-To: Dave Sill Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Lines: 24 In article <4140@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > >OK...so it's not OK to blatantly advertise commercial products, but it's OK to >blatantly advertise the soi-disant Free Software Foundation's products. I get >it now. That's right. In the former case, a comercial entity gains advantage at the expense of the USENET community. In the latter, everyone benefits and no profits are made at the expense of others. >GNU stuff is *not* free. It costs something other than money, though: it costs >your freedom to do as you like with your code if you include even a line of >their code. $150 sure sounds cheap by comparison. Yes, their are restrictions on what you can do with *their* code--you're free to do whatever you want with your own code--but isn't that only fair? And there is absolutely no reason why one would need to include a modified bash in their product, so the fear of it causing you to give your precious code away is baseless. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support