Path: utzoo!telly!ddsw1!mcdchg!rutgers!labrea!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!DUSTBIN.CISCO.COM!cire
From: cire@DUSTBIN.CISCO.COM (cire|eric)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: More confusion on GNU copying conditions
Message-ID: <8811150451.AA20267@prep.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 88 04:41:43 GMT
References: <1052@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: bob@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 34



Well actually I think the intent of Richard and the FSF is to make
sure the stuff stays free.  Like in really Free.  Unfettered in that
you can do anything you want to it including making it not free
doesn't strike me as being in the park as 'free'.

-c

|> From: accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu!baloo.eng.ohio-state.edu!rob@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Rob Carriere)
|> Date: 14 Nov 88 20:36:08 GMT
|> Organization: Ohio State Univ, College of Engineering
|> Subject: Re: More confusion on GNU copying conditions
|> To: info-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu
|> Status: RO
|> 
|> 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