Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!shadooby!umich!itivax!scs
From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <4686@itivax.iti.org>
Date: 21 Dec 89 15:19:42 GMT
References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> <6055@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Sender: news@itivax.iti.org
Lines: 18

manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes:

>After reading the GPL very carefully, I am unable to see *anything*
>different in kind from a standard licence agreement for a programming
>language . . .

>I have not heard any of the anti-FSF types in this newsgroup dumping on
>Borland or Texas Instruments for their `restraint of trade' in refusing
>to give their software away . . .

The primary thing that offends people about the GPS/Free Software
Foundation is misinterpretation of the word "free".  "Free" here
means "no charge".  It does not mean "unencumbered".

Meself, I'd prefer that it meant unencumbered -- but if that's the
way they want to do it, it's their code.

Anybody want to start the Unencumbered Software Foundation?  :-)/2