Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!crdgw1!underdog!shane
From: shane@underdog.crd.ge.com (Randall H. Shane)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Copyleftability
Message-ID: <4304@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 19 Dec 89 17:57:48 GMT
References: <8255@stiatl.UUCP> <NELSON.89Dec18212423@image.clarkson.edu>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: shane@underdog.crd.ge.com (Randall H. Shane)
Distribution: na
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center
Lines: 46

In article <NELSON.89Dec18212423@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
] In article <8255@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes:
] ]  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 way of ever
] ]  making a cent off of that piece of software.
] Nonsense!  The only "right" you are lacking is the legal right to restrict
] people from copying your software.  *You* interpret this to mean that you
] then have no way to make money.
] There is indeed a way to make money off of Copylefted software.  You
] find a user group whose members need a particular program that you are
] capable of writing.  The user group pays you your money and you write the
] program.
] They get a useful program that they can give to their friends, family,
] and whoever else they want.  And you get a risk-free way to earn XX
] amount of dollars.  You *know* that you will make money off of the
] program, and you even know how much.
] 
] As I see it, what *you* want is the right to make an unlimited amount
] of money off of your program.  

	So??  If people wish to pay an unlimited amount of money for
his program, why shouldn't he take it??  (Of course, he also has the
right to not make a cent, or lose his shirt if he's not careful.)
Right now (Apple's lawsuits notwithstanding, and I hope they LOSE LOSE
LOSE), RMS, Gnu, and company have the right to distribute copylefted
software under their terms.  That's fine -- if I don't like their
terms, I don't have to use their software.  Similarly, if I don't like
Miles' terms, I don't have to use Miles' software.  (Note : I don't
even know if Miles HAS any software...).  Stallman's stated goal in
the GNU manifesto is to make Miles' (implied) terms illegal.  I don't
want to make Miles's, or Stallman's terms illegal, and I would assume
that neither does Miles.  Gnu tries to claim the moral high ground by
stating that software is the common property of mankind, and that
software should be shared, regardless of creatorship or ownership (the
latter he denies can exist at all).  I have no problem with shared
software -- what I have a problem with is when Gnu & company demand
the right to share MY software.  Terms like 'software hoarders' don't
make me feel any better disposed towards them either.  If someone
doesn't want to buy Miles' software, let them duplicate it.  ('Look and
Feel' lawsuits are for the birds.)

-- Randall Shane [shane@disney.crd.ge.com]

"My daughter is being taught that there is no man greater than
Lenin.  I brought her here so that she could see a man greater than Lenin."   	
	-- Russian woman at a memorial service for Andrei Sakharov