Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu!baloo.eng.ohio-state.edu!rob
From: rob@baloo.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: More confusion on GNU copying conditions
Message-ID: <1052@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 14 Nov 88 20:36:08 GMT
References: <8811131422.AA00325@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: news@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: rob@baloo.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Ohio State Univ, College of Engineering
Lines: 18

In article <8811131422.AA00325@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU 
(Richard Stallman) writes:
>   [quoting someone]
>   "This really bummed me out. I really like the GNU concept, but I don't like
>    my rights to software being taken away by a compiler."
>
>The GNU concept is that software should be shared.  This person seems
>to be saying that he likes the GNU concept, except in so far as it
>means he has to share software.  Is this paradoxical, or what?
>Perhaps he thought the GNU concept was something else.

One way to get bummed out is to read ``Free Software Foundation'' and
blithely assume that free means unfettered here.  In fact all it seems
to mean is "costing no money", a rather more boring aspect of the
word.  The AT&T Eunuchs license is less restrictive than the GNU one.
Hmmm....

Rob Carriere