tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (01/29/91)
It seems to me that rms is entitled to his alternate distribution method if he wants it. It's a reasonably sane method of preventing others from reselling, for profit, code that was written to be distributed for free. If you want to make money off software, write it or buy it. Only a software "industry" accustomed to glomming freeware into salable product would seem likely to feel offended by GNU. In the meantime, here's a chance to make Adam Smith proud. Write competing packages that do everything GNU does, and sell them cheap. Astound your friends, make the cover of TIME. :-)
oz@nexus.YorkU.CA (Ozan Yigit) (01/29/91)
[this article appeared in a gnu newsgroup, and it is thought to be very illuminating for those following the progress of FSF, and its politics, from either supportive or non-supportive positions. enjoy... oz] --- From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Why we use copyleft Message-ID: <9101282011.AA20121@mole.ai.mit.edu> Date: 28 Jan 91 20:11:23 GMT Lines: 37 Currently we don't let people turn our software into proprietary software. Some people consider our policy "taking away freedom". But freedom to do what? Only the freedom to be a software hoarder and undermine the freedom of others. Thus, the question is whether we defend freedom best by trying to prevent others from taking it away, or by passively letting everyone else do whatever they want. Some people are pacifists; they believe in being peaceful even to murderers, rapists or tyrants. It would be fully consistent for a pacifist to believe in putting software in the public domain. But I'm not a pacifist. (Most of you are not pacifists either.) I think it makes sense to have policemen try to stop or catch murderers, and armies or revolutions try to stop or catch tyrants, even if they have to shoot. Likewise, though on a different scale of intensity, I think it makes sense to use the weapons of software hoarding (such as copyright) against hoarders to prevent hoarding. Think of this as economic sanctions--offering aid in exchange for progress in recognizing particular human rights. If that means we lose business, that's ok. We also lose business when we refuse to trade with South Africa or Iraq. The purpose of the GNU project is not to maximize the amount of use of GNU software. It is to promote freedom. The example of X Windows shows what would happen without the copyleft. Most users who get X Windows get just a binary. They can't get the source for the version they are running. The MIT source may not interoperate with it, since it may not contain the changes needed for the particular operating system in use. The result is that X Windows is not free for most users. (I myself have had this problem.) And many improvements made to X Windows are kept proprietary and do not get back to the community. GNU software avoids this problem, while being nonetheless well accepted. This shows that the copyleft is working. It would be silly for us to drop our sanctions now.
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (01/30/91)
Stallman's comments make it plain that he's not really interested in maximizing the reuse of software, as the GNU General Public Virus claims; rather, he's using it as a political weapon to further his utopia. Hence, his software, far from being truly free, will continue carrying the cost of buying in to his utopian ideal of stamping out software ownership entirely. I find it particularly ironic that he's using the FSF's ownership of its software to further his goals. This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my programming. This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors (even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to license their code under non-utopian terms. Oh well. So much for gcc, bash, perl, smail 3,... -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (01/30/91)
According to jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard): >I can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my >programming. Our rights to control our own programming are explicitly protected in the few cases that really matter to me: output of GCC/G++ and files edited by Emacs. And who would ever sue a person making a good faith effort to abide by the GPV? -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "I want to mention that my opinions whether real or not are MY opinions." -- the inevitable William "Billy" Steinmetz
taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) (02/01/91)
Chip Salzenberg writes: > Our rights to control our own programming are explicitly protected in > the few cases that really matter to me: output of GCC/G++ and files > edited by Emacs. Files edited by EMACS? You've GOT to be kidding here, Chip. Tell me you aren't saying that any files edited by EMACS now have the FSF license stuck to them forever? If so, what an incredibly powerful argument to use "vi"... -- Dave Taylor Intuitive Systems Mountain View, California taylor@limbo.intuitive.com or {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor
n025fc@tamuts.tamu.edu (Kevin Weller) (02/01/91)
In article <1695@limbo.Intuitive.Com> taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) writes: > [ deleted stuff ] > Tell me you aren't saying that any files edited by EMACS now have > the FSF license stuck to them forever? > [ deleted stuff ] > -- Dave Taylor He isn't. They don't (have the FSF license stuck to them at all). -- Kevin L. Weller /-------+--------------------\ internet: n025fc@tamuts.tamu.edu | aTm | GIG 'EM, AGGIES! | CIS: 73327,1447 \-------+--------------------/
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (02/02/91)
According to taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor): >Chip Salzenberg writes: >> Our rights to control our own programming are explicitly protected in >> the few cases that really matter to me: output of GCC/G++ and files >> edited by Emacs. > >Tell me you aren't saying that any files edited by EMACS now have >the FSF license stuck to them forever? Let me rephrase: The GNU Public License does not attempt to require free distribution of the source code for GCC-compiled programs, nor does it attempt to require free distribution of files edited by GNU Emacs. Is that clearer? -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "I want to mention that my opinions whether real or not are MY opinions." -- the inevitable William "Billy" Steinmetz
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (02/05/91)
As quoted from <27A6E9BA.2E94@tct.uucp> by chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg): +--------------- | According to jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard): | >I can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my | >programming. | | And who would ever sue a person making a good faith effort to abide by | the GPV? +--------------- A willing dupe with a greedy lawyer. There've been some cases of ridiculous suits making it into court because some larcenous lawsmith started seeing green... and the company I work for can't afford some yip suing us because a system we sell happens to include some Perl scripts and the yip thinks he can sue us into giving him the whole system for free courtesy of the GPV. If any of our customers even *threatens* this there'll be h*ll to pay.... ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (02/05/91)
As quoted from <1695@limbo.Intuitive.Com> by taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor): +--------------- | Chip Salzenberg writes: | > Our rights to control our own programming are explicitly protected in | > the few cases that really matter to me: output of GCC/G++ and files | > edited by Emacs. | | Tell me you aren't saying that any files edited by EMACS now have | the FSF license stuck to them forever? +--------------- No, he's saying that gcc, g++, and Emacs output is explicitly *not* covered by the GPV. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb5.011604.3849@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes:
: As quoted from <27A6E9BA.2E94@tct.uucp> by chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg):
: +---------------
: | According to jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard):
: | >I can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my
: | >programming.
: |
: | And who would ever sue a person making a good faith effort to abide by
: | the GPV?
: +---------------
:
: A willing dupe with a greedy lawyer. There've been some cases of ridiculous
: suits making it into court because some larcenous lawsmith started seeing
: green... and the company I work for can't afford some yip suing us because a
: system we sell happens to include some Perl scripts and the yip thinks he can
: sue us into giving him the whole system for free courtesy of the GPV.
Perl scripts are very explicitly disclaimed in the README file for Perl,
so this would be a frivolous lawsuit. You could very likely countersue
for punitive damages.
To quote: "no Perl script falls under the terms of the License unless you
explicitly put said script under the terms of the License yourself."
: If any of our customers even *threatens* this there'll be h*ll to pay....
Feel free to call on me as an expert witless, er, witness. I would certainly
back your side.
Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.govjeff@crash.cts.com (Jeff Makey) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb5.011604.3849@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes: >the company I work for can't afford some yip suing us because a >system we sell happens to include some Perl scripts and the yip thinks he can >sue us into giving him the whole system for free courtesy of the GPV. Of the infinite variety of frivolous lawsuits that can be filed against you, why be paranoid about this particular one? :: Jeff Makey Department of Tautological Pleonasms and Superfluous Redundancies Department Posting from my temporary home at ... Domain: jeff@crash.cts.com UUCP: nosc!crash!jeff
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (02/06/91)
In article <27A6E9BA.2E94@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >Our rights to control our own programming are explicitly protected in >the few cases that really matter to me: output of GCC/G++ and files >edited by Emacs. Emacs and GCC: yes. G++: not when you link in their libraries. >And who would ever sue a person making a good faith effort to abide by >the GPV? Why should the status of my code depend on what RMS had for breakfast? -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (02/07/91)
According to allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR): >As quoted from <27A6E9BA.2E94@tct.uucp> by chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg): >>And who would ever sue a person making a good faith effort to abide by >>the GPV? > >A willing dupe with a greedy lawyer. Granted. On the other hand, that same pair will sue you for looking at the dupe crosseyed. Have I a cure for liti-mania? If I had that, I'd be a millionaire... -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "Most of my code is written by myself. That is why so little gets done." -- Herman "HLLs will never fly" Rubin
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (02/07/91)
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > >Our rights to control our own programming are explicitly protected in > >the few cases that really matter to me: output of GCC/G++ and files > >edited by Emacs. > > Emacs and GCC: yes. > G++: not when you link in their libraries. And what happens if a future version of the gcc *command* (as opposed to the gcc *compiler*) decides to link in a GPV covered library by default? Suddenly my makefile starts producing GPV covered binaries without any intervention on my part (remember: gcc might have been upgraded by my computer service provider). Yes, I have heard of the LGPL, but there isn't any guarantee that *all* future versions of the gcc *command* will refrain from default linking infected libraries. Maybe there ought to be such a guarantee. -- Ronald Khoo <ronald@robobar.co.uk> +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (02/07/91)
According to jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard): >In article <27A6E9BA.2E94@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>Our rights to control our own programming are explicitly protected in >>the few cases that really matter to me: output of GCC/G++ and files >>edited by Emacs. > >Emacs and GCC: yes. >G++: not when you link in their libraries. I specifically omitted mention of libg++ because I don't use it, and I don't expect ever to use it. Why? Two reasons: (1) I do not wish to put all my C++ code under the GPL. (2) I consider libg++ a botched design -- one big inheritance tree is Smalltalk, not C++. (The LGPL may solve the former problem, but it will not solve the latter.) (Yes, I need streams; I got it from InterViews, which is not GPL-protected.) >Why should the status of my code depend on what RMS had for breakfast? Frivolous lawsuits, potential and actual, are everywhere. I see no reason to guard against this particular one. Besides, the enforceability of the GPL is questionable. Any lawyer worth the name would avoid such a WOMBAT. And RMS most certainly would not spend money for the chance to have the GPL gutted by the courts unless he were forced into action by a flagrant violator. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "Most of my code is written by myself. That is why so little gets done." -- Herman "HLLs will never fly" Rubin
rjc@sole.cs.ucla.edu (Robert Collins) (02/08/91)
In article <27B177AF.2968@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >I consider libg++ a botched >design -- one big inheritance tree is Smalltalk, not C++. Gee, last time I checked, libg++ was a very wide forest, not a tree. Maybe you should reevaluate libg++? >Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> rob
dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio) (02/08/91)
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: > Yes, I have heard of the LGPL, but there isn't any guarantee that > *all* future versions of the gcc *command* will refrain from default > linking infected libraries. Maybe there ought to be such a guarantee. I don't see how there can possibly be such a guarantee. The only case where I can see this happening is if a vendor provided you with such a system, which the FSF can't prevent or make guarantees about. -- Doug DeJulio
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (02/09/91)
According to ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo): >And what happens if a future version of the gcc *command* (as opposed >to the gcc *compiler*) decides to link in a GPV covered library by default? ... but if that GPL-covered library is on your system, it's there because _you_ fetched it, _you_ compiled it, and _you_ installed it in /usr/local/lib. Unless... >(remember: gcc might have been upgraded by my computer service provider). In that case, your computer service provider could just as well have put AT&T trade secret source code or NSA decryption code into a public library. Does that mean that the trade secret status of AT&T code, or the classified status of NSA decryption code, is a danger to you? No. The danger is buying computer services from an irresponsible provider. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "Most of my code is written by myself. That is why so little gets done." -- Herman "HLLs will never fly" Rubin
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (02/10/91)
As quoted from <11311@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> by lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall): +--------------- | In article <1991Feb5.011604.3849@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes: | : A willing dupe with a greedy lawyer. There've been some cases of ridiculous | : suits making it into court because some larcenous lawsmith started seeing | : green... and the company I work for can't afford some yip suing us because a | : system we sell happens to include some Perl scripts and the yip thinks he can | : sue us into giving him the whole system for free courtesy of the GPV. | | Perl scripts are very explicitly disclaimed in the README file for Perl, | so this would be a frivolous lawsuit. You could very likely countersue | for punitive damages. +--------------- You know that, I know that, but the shoestrings just got pulled even tighter at Telotech and we'd be hard put to respond to such frivolous lawsuit without getting into serious financial trouble right off the bat. Besides, while the *scripts* are disclaimed, I can see some overambitious lawyer claiming that the fact that Perl is shipped with the system is grounds for the system being free --- again, frivolous, but still pushing the boundaries. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (02/10/91)
According to rjc@cs.ucla.edu (Robert Collins): >In article <27B177AF.2968@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>I consider libg++ a botched design -- one big inheritance tree is >>Smalltalk, not C++. > >Gee, last time I checked, libg++ was a very wide forest, not a tree. Aargh. As a kind person E-Mailed to tell me, I have confused the NIH Class Library (a tree) with libg++ (a forest). Mea culpa. I withdraw my technical complaint about libg++. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "Most of my code is written by myself. That is why so little gets done." -- Herman "HLLs will never fly" Rubin
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (02/12/91)
As quoted from <7436@crash.cts.com> by jeff@crash.cts.com (Jeff Makey): +--------------- | In article <1991Feb5.011604.3849@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes: | >the company I work for can't afford some yip suing us because a | >system we sell happens to include some Perl scripts and the yip thinks he can | >sue us into giving him the whole system for free courtesy of the GPV. | | Of the infinite variety of frivolous lawsuits that can be filed against | you, why be paranoid about this particular one? +--------------- Because of all the people who *truly* misunderstand the GPL, to the point where they're convinced that the bug in /etc/movemail (rms can call it whatever he wants, in a real world system which *needs* security it's a bug) is in fact a mechanism to deliberately evade security on systems which have Emacs installed to further his goals. (Yes, I've met such idiots.) And to the point where they're convinced that the intent of the GPL is to force anything and everything it touches to immediately become free, regardless. (I've met these too.) ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb9.185803.18482@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes:
: You know that, I know that, but the shoestrings just got pulled even tighter
: at Telotech and we'd be hard put to respond to such frivolous lawsuit without
: getting into serious financial trouble right off the bat. Besides, while the
: *scripts* are disclaimed, I can see some overambitious lawyer claiming that
: the fact that Perl is shipped with the system is grounds for the system being
: free --- again, frivolous, but still pushing the boundaries.
Suits are paid to analyze such risks and take them.
Too much caution is as dangerous as too little--it just takes longer to lose.
"Angels rush in where fools fear to tread." :-)
Larryallbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (02/13/91)
As quoted from <1991Feb12.011943.14151@NCoast.ORG> by allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR): +--------------- | whatever he wants, in a real world system which *needs* security it's a bug) | is in fact a mechanism to deliberately evade security on systems which have +--------------- Err, *was*. Although I'd not be surprised if lots of people are still using older versions that have the bug. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (02/14/91)
According to allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR):
>Because of all the people who *truly* misunderstand the GPL ...
Some people think that the Apollo program was fake, but that
professional wrestling is real.
For some reason I have a hard time using the widespread ignorance of
the population at large as an excuse for avoiding GNU tools.
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
"I want to mention that my opinions whether real or not are MY opinions."
-- the inevitable William "Billy" Steinmetzoz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) (02/22/91)
In article <See ref> gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >Please read what I write, and not what you want to argue >against ;-) We read what you wrote, but aside from maybes and couldbes and the usual fsfnoid strawman, [appropriately enough, a simple re-iteration of RMS' opinions] not much else is there. How about some hard facts about those oh-so-suffering X users for a change? oz
gl8f@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (02/23/91)
In article <21728@yunexus.YorkU.CA> oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes: >We read what you wrote, but aside from maybes and couldbes and the usual >fsfnoid strawman, [appropriately enough, a simple re-iteration of RMS' >opinions] not much else is there. How about some hard facts about those >oh-so-suffering X users for a change? I made a very simple comment on a very simple point. I will restate it so that you can see that I am not an "fsfnoid" of any type. I am not claiming that my argument is true for everyone. I am saying that it's true for some people. The claim was, essentially, that "PD status is always better than GPL status. Everyone can see this." I gave an example where, for *some* people, this isn't true. I won't repeat it because I'm sure you recall it. I didn't say it was true for everyone, nor that it was true for you. I don't need to present hard facts, because it was a hypothetical situation. That's all one needs to say "no, it's not *always* true that PD is better than GPL." Now, whether or not X would have become popular if it was GPLed has NOTHING to do with this line of argument. And that's why I asked Nazgul to respond to what I wrote, not what he wanted to argue against. There are arguments to be made for making things PD, and I know what they are, and I like some of them. However, I don't think it's *always* true that those arguments win. Different people have different criteria, and you aren't everyone. Is this clear yet, or is someone else going to step up and gleefully read more things into my postings?
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (02/24/91)
In article <1991Feb22.173554.15165@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >Now, whether or not X would have become popular if it was GPLed has >NOTHING to do with this line of argument. And that's why I asked >Nazgul to respond to what I wrote, not what he wanted to argue >against. There are arguments to be made for making things PD, and I >know what they are, and I like some of them. However, I don't think >it's *always* true that those arguments win. Different people have >different criteria, and you aren't everyone. That's fine, in fact I said that. You're quite right, I wasn't responding directly to what you said, rather making sure that people didn't assume that you could generalize from that to assume that GPL was always better.