Path: utzoo!telly!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!stiatl!meo
From: meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Copyleftability
Message-ID: <8255@stiatl.UUCP>
Date: 18 Dec 89 23:49:12 GMT
Organization: Roadkills-R-Us
Lines: 26

In article <4049@convex.UUCP> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
|
|Well, that's not quite true as far I understand these matters.  You can
|include copylefted code as part of a commercial release, providing that
|you not charge extra for it above and beyond your standard release (save
|for a maintenance warranty) and that you make the source available.  If this
|means using just some copylefted code in a new work, then the whole new
|work falls under the copyleft.

And this is (IMO) a bit absurd. If I use the gnu compiler, and link
to the gnu compiler, then if I spend a year of effort to write something,
I have no (legal, ie government monopoly, for those who bandy that term
about so casually) way of ever making a cent off of that piece of software.

I choose to make my living writing software. Everything I see from Mr.
Stallman's published writings & interviews (1) says he thinks that makes
me a jackass, or a thief, or various other things that imply I should
maybe make my living in ironmongery.

Abiding by the copyleft essentially is antithetical to making a living
in the USA writing software, except for the chosen few who have been
blessed with sugar daddies to pay for them to do just that.


-Miles O'Neal
{yr fave backbone here}!emory!stiatl!meo