Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:6436 gnu.misc.discuss:2372 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!vsi1!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: rms says... Message-ID: <27B177AF.2968@tct.uucp> Date: 7 Feb 91 15:52:14 GMT References: <4607@lib.tmc.edu> <27A6E9BA.2E94@tct.uucp> <4689@lib.tmc.edu> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 31 According to jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard): >In article <27A6E9BA.2E94@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>Our rights to control our own programming are explicitly protected in >>the few cases that really matter to me: output of GCC/G++ and files >>edited by Emacs. > >Emacs and GCC: yes. >G++: not when you link in their libraries. I specifically omitted mention of libg++ because I don't use it, and I don't expect ever to use it. Why? Two reasons: (1) I do not wish to put all my C++ code under the GPL. (2) I consider libg++ a botched design -- one big inheritance tree is Smalltalk, not C++. (The LGPL may solve the former problem, but it will not solve the latter.) (Yes, I need streams; I got it from InterViews, which is not GPL-protected.) >Why should the status of my code depend on what RMS had for breakfast? Frivolous lawsuits, potential and actual, are everywhere. I see no reason to guard against this particular one. Besides, the enforceability of the GPL is questionable. Any lawyer worth the name would avoid such a WOMBAT. And RMS most certainly would not spend money for the chance to have the GPL gutted by the courts unless he were forced into action by a flagrant violator. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , "Most of my code is written by myself. That is why so little gets done." -- Herman "HLLs will never fly" Rubin