From: keith@ksmith.com (Keith Smith) Subject: Re: Recent GPL interpretations and Linux Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 02:10:51 GMT
In article <1993Jul8.212021.20441@brtph560.bnr.ca> denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca (Jay Denebeim P025) writes:
>In article <1993Jul8.190757.8962@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com writes:
>>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?
No basically we are talking common sense here. Suppose I produce a
pencil and GIVE it to you with the restriction that anything you WRITE
with that pencil must be given away also.
I can _do_ it but no court anywhere is gonna hold to the notion that
just because I gave you a pencil, that the poetry you write with it must
be given away too. When it comes to things like program development
tools and libraries this crap will _never_ hold water. The code in libc
was produced with the express purpose of being included/used in another
work, and then GIVEN AWAY. dumb, dumb, dumb.
I beleive you will find that Microsloth, and IBM, and all other manner
of critters tried this type of crap early in the PC with their
development tools. When they discovered none of it would hold much
water anyway these licences were changed to allow free distribution of
library code in derivitive works.
Oh, and from the commercial software side, If Microsoft built Word for
Linux, I sincerely doubt the MS programmers would bother with the GNU
libraries anyway.
-- Keith Smith keith@ksmith.com 5719 Archer Rd. Digital Designs BBS 1-919-423-4216 Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201 Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...