nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (07/26/89)
[ I would like people to *not* make this into a "FSF-vs-the world" argument. I distribute Licensed software, and am not associated with the FSF. By referring to Licensed software rather than the FSF or their GNU project, we can keep this discussion appropriate to all involved.] As current written, the General Public License applies to derivative software. This includes software that is "merely" linked to Licensed software. I think that that is the clause that most people object to. From the FSF's point of view, they have no choice but to insist upon this. They are engaged in this business for political purposes, to show people that free software can indeed compete with proprietary software. If they didn't insist, then anyone who used their software would only supply source for the Licensed part. User-does-the-link is a compromise that undermines their interests. From non-proponents point of view, they regard this as an appropriation of their efforts, and so they refuse to link their software to Licensed software. This is the crux of the disagreement. If there is ever to be agreement, it will happen when companies that License their software compete successfully against those who keep their software proprietary. This may take many years. I hope that the FSF and others are here for the long haul. -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])|(70441.205@compuserve.com)
tower@ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (07/27/89)
Date: 25 Jul 89 18:49:45 GMT From: nelson@image.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY Subject: A sense of the meeting [ I would like people to *not* make this into a "FSF-vs-the world" argument. I distribute Licensed software, and am not associated with the FSF. By referring to Licensed software rather than the FSF or their GNU project, we can keep this discussion appropriate to all involved.] I find this usage of the word 'License' confusing (note below). I suggest we don't adopt this usage here. I think the word 'copyleft' is much better. If copyleft isn't good enough for Russ, I suggest he come up with something distinctive and defined the differences. If there is ever to be agreement, it will happen when companies that License their software compete successfully against those who --------^^^^^^^ confusing. companies who keep their software proprietary generally license it as well. keep their software proprietary. This may take many years. I hope that the FSF and others are here for the long haul. -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])|(70441.205@compuserve.com) thanx -len