From: peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Public domain software? Date: 28 Nov 1992 20:34:28 GMT
In article <1992Nov28.110855.26288@hellgate.utah.edu> baford@labhp23.cs.utah.edu (bryan ford) writes:
> If the GPL is a "significant encumbrance" to what you want to do with
> the software, then what you want to do with the software is probably
> not in the interests of the original authors of that software or of
> the "general public". If you think this statement is wrong, then I
> would be happy to see a counterexample.
Well, I have written software components (subroutines, libraries) that
have been included in commercial packages by third parties. If I had used
the GPL I couldn't have done this... even if I were willing to make a
separate deal with the third parties they would probably have been scared
off in the first place.
What I want people to do with my software is be the most productive people
they can be. If I could support that goal with the GPL, I would, but for
the sort of things I do I can't. Yet I believe that what I'm doing is in the
best interest of the original authors (myself) and the general public.
The problem is, there are applications that are insufficiently fun to attract
GPL type support, and are of insufficiently high value on a person-by-person
basis to allow customer #1 to pay all the development costs. Commercial
software publishing as it now exists is the best way to pay for the work
required to develop such software, and if you want to help those people (and
I do) you need to give them a deal they can afford to make.
The library GPL seems like it would be a good solution to this dilemma, but
I haven't seen any software actually use it yet.
--
%Peter da Silva/77487-5012 USA/+1 713 274 5180/Have you hugged your wolf today?
/D{def}def/I{72 mul}D/L{lineto}D/C{curveto}D/F{0 562 moveto 180 576 324 648 396
736 C 432 736 L 482 670 518 634 612 612 C}D/G{setgray}D .75 G F 612 792 L 0 792
L fill 1 G 324 720 24 0 360 arc fill 0 G 3 setlinewidth F stroke showpage % 100