Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpccc!hp-sde!hpfcdc!hpislx!hpmtlx!ed
From: ed@hpmtlx.HP.COM ($Ed Schlotzhauer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: GNU software rights (was Re: general class definitions)
Message-ID: <800001@hpmtlx.HP.COM>
Date: 1 Aug 88 17:36:14 GMT
References: <24158@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Organization: HP Manufacturing Test Division - Loveland, CO
Lines: 19

>The success of GNU software (e.g. GNU Emacs, gcc and g++) certainly
>demonstrates that the approach has merit and that a community of
>sharers of freed software is viable.

Yes, but I believe gnu emacs would be an obscure and unused curiosity if
EVERY FILE I edited with it became the property of FSF/RMS.

Likewise, making the source code of the g++ compiler freely sharable is a
great idea, but making all code COMPILED with it necessarily sharable will
seriously limit its acceptance.  For instance, I work for a commercial
company and, despite how RMS feels about it, we do NOT give away everything
we do.  I would like to use g++ for a few things, but I can't do any more
than play with it as a toy because its use would compromise the ownership of
what my company feels (right or wrong) is its property.

Laying aside the arguments about software ownership, the issue for me is
CHOICE.  I do not like to have my freedom of choice taken away.

Ed