On May 26, 10:45 am, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > The _growth_ and evolution of this pool is important: > > > stagnation is not going to cut it much in a rapidly evolving > > > landscape. > > > > It is important, but not the goal of the GPL and never was. > > > Again, your views clash with that of the actual author of the GPL, > > even though you feel qualified for some reason to speak for him. > > > I fail to see where they clash at all. > > That must be the reason why you removed both the URL as well as any > trace of Richard's word from the reply. > > > Richard speaks about sharing the pool of software that already > > exists, not converting non-free software into free software. Maybe > > when you wish to quote something, you ought to understand it first. > > You are not even fooling yourself. > > > Is this not rather clearly expressed? Why do you feel that you > > are better qualified to state Stallman's views than Stallman > > himself? > > > Yes, protecting the pool of free software that exists, not > > converting non-free software into free software. Thank you for > > proving my point. > > You are by now only stammering. First you try putting words in my > mouth (as well as in Richard's), then you "thank" me for this pathetic > and transparent attempt. > > Let us again take a look at Richard's words in > <URL:<URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.html>, and let > us see whether you will again cut both the URL as well as Richard's > own words from your reply, exhibiting the deliberateness of your > ignorance: > > Consider GNU C++. Why do we have a free C++ compiler? Only because > the GNU GPL said it had to be free. GNU C++ was developed by an > industry consortium, MCC, starting from the GNU C compiler. MCC > normally makes its work as proprietary as can be. But they made > the C++ front end free software, because the GNU GPL said that was > the only way they could release it. The C++ front end included > many new files, but since they were meant to be linked with GCC, > the GPL did apply to them. The benefit to our community is > evident. > > Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front > end proprietary; they proposed to release it as .o files, and let > users link them with the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a way > around the GPL's requirements. But our lawyer said that this would > not evade the requirements, that it was not allowed. And so they > made the Objective C front end free software. > > Those examples happened years ago, but the GNU GPL continues to > bring us more free software. > > Many GNU libraries are covered by the GNU Lesser General Public > License, but not all. One GNU library which is covered by the > ordinary GNU GPL is Readline, which implements command-line > editing. I once found out about a non-free program which was > designed to use Readline, and told the developer this was not > allowed. He could have taken command-line editing out of the > program, but what he actually did was rerelease it under the > GPL. Now it is free software. > > The programmers who write improvements to GCC (or Emacs, or Bash, > or Linux, or any GPL-covered program) are often employed by > companies or universities. When the programmer wants to return his > improvements to the community, and see his code in the next > release, the boss may say, ``Hold on there--your code belongs to > us! We don't want to share it; we have decided to turn your > improved version into a proprietary software product.'' > > Here the GNU GPL comes to the rescue. The programmer shows the > boss that this proprietary software product would be copyright > infringement, and the boss realizes that he has only two choices: > release the new code as free software, or not at all. Almost > always he lets the programmer do as he intended all along, and the > code goes into the next release. > > These are Stallman's words. He lists several examples where software > has been, in the end, released as free software that was planned and > in some cases even distributed as non-free software. > > And he explains that he considers this the _strength_ of the GPL. > There are separate essays where he also expounds on this, like in > <URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/why-copyleft.html>. >
Wow! I guess my understanding was correct after all. Thanks. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
