Path: utzoo!telly!attcan!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!bu-cs!lll-winken!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!Think.COM!barmar
From: barmar@Think.COM
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Copyleftability
Message-ID: <32334@news.Think.COM>
Date: 19 Dec 89 06:23:41 GMT
References: <8255@stiatl.UUCP>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA
Lines: 42

In article <8255@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes:
>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.

Others have already pointed out that you can charge for software, so long
as you don't restrict what the purchaser may do with it (including making
copies for himself).  Another flaw in your argument is the part about
linking (I assume you meant "linking to the GNU libraries", not "linking to
the GNU compiler"); if you really want to restrict the purchaser's copying
rights without violating the GNU copyleft, sell an unlinked version of your
program and tell the purchaser to link it to his own libraries.  Of course,
this means that only people with compatible libraries can purchase your
software.  Alternatively, you can compile the program using the GNU
compiler, but link it with a different library that isn't copylefted.

>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.

I also choose to make my living writing software.  As far as I'm concerned,
anyone who wants my software can have it; in fact, my employer generally
doesn't mind my giving it away, since the programs I write are unrelated to
our product line (I write and maintain development utilities used by our
researchers, but our business is selling Connection Machines and CM
software).

>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.

What's the difference between a sugar daddy and an employer?  Who is
Stallman's "sugar daddy", since he has been making a living writing
software for years without a full-time employer (except perhaps the FSF,
which probably can't afford to pay very well).

Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar