From: denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca (Jay Denebeim P025) Subject: Re: Recent GPL interpretations and Linux Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 21:20:21 GMT
In article <1993Jul8.190757.8962@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com writes:
>
>About the recent GPL debate:
<snip snip>
>I agree. I'm developing something in Linux that I eventually hope to sell.
>I'll be distributing the Linux kernel, libraries, and other utilities for
>free, but the software *I* wrote will be sold. I have no intention of
>stopping because my code calls free libraries. IMHO Stallman's opinion
>is bogus.
>Furthermore, as an Objectivist, I allow no-one to dictate terms for using
>anything which flowed from my mind. The code that I develop
>and wish to sell is *mine* to do with what I please. No-one can ever lay
>claim to my code unless I give it away or sell it. To do otherwise is theft.
Ok, let me see if I got this straight. You feel that your right to
use other people's code (by calling libc), superceeds their right to
dictate under what circumstances their code is used. Right?
So, if I want to distribute your programs to the world, all I have to
do is write a shell script to call it. Hmmm, sounds handy. I guess
this is why all the crackers put their screens up. Protects them from
copyright violation.
From what I can see, it seems like all you have to do is 'roll your
own' routines rather than calling libc to fix your problem. Unless
you wrote libc you're not using things that flowed from your mind,
you're using things that flowed from someone else's mind. Your
attitude seems pretty hypocritical to me.
--
Jay Denebeim Address: UUCP: duke!wolves!deepthot!jay
Internet: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us
BBS:(919)-460-7430 VOICE:(919)-460-6934