Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!texbell!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware) Message-ID: Date: 10 Mar 90 03:44:24 GMT References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> <34812@watmath.waterloo.edu> <10612@hoptoad.uucp> <796.25f66867@ccvax.ucd.ie> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 12 > To my mind, it's as free as anything else. Or could it be that you just don't > like the idea of any improvements you make to code in turn being free ? I have no problem with them retaining the rights to their code, and any improvements. What I'm talking about is how the whole of any software that contains any GNU code is considered as no more than such an improvement. That includes (say) a 300K line compiler that happens to use GNU Getopt for command line parsing. Claiming rights to your code because you use a GNU library routine is just a bit beyond the pale for me. You may disagree, but surely you can see the point. -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v