Path: utzoo!telly!philmtl!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Because you think I misrepresent RMS, it's OK to misrepresent me? Message-ID: <4759@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 14 Dec 89 05:49:22 GMT References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> <1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com> <3084@cello.UUCP> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 29 In article <3084@cello.UUCP> sanders@sanders.austin.ibm.com (Tony Sanders) writes: > The only right they loose is they cannot sell gnu code for their own > profit. As well as their own code that's linked with GNU code. > If you ONLY mean "GNU library" and "bison" then: And whatever comes up next. How about the software packages that by default install an emulation library containing things like the GNU getopt in /usr/lib? > I agree that it is more possible that one could "unwittingly" use gnu code > in this case although for me it still isn't an issue. You would have to > be pretty careless. Not really. Not with the stuff getting more common. > Would you be happy if these items were removed from the copyright realm? Yes. If it is necessary to include a peice of code to use the product at all, then that code should be exempted from the GNU copyleft. That includes the BISON skeleton, GNU getopt, and any eventual GNU library. That would satisfy me. I suggested that several months ago and was totally flamed for even suggesting that there be an exception to GNU. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"