Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Selling of free software
Message-ID: <1990Aug11.234423.3307@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <6--4A8C@xds13.ferranti.com> <1990Aug8.173146.1206@santra.uucp> <meulenbr.650184899@cst> <7268@star.cs.vu.nl> <1990Aug10.170521.9435@zoo.toronto.edu> <9849@galapas.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 23:44:23 GMT

In article <9849@galapas.ai.mit.edu> jla@ai.mit.edu (Joseph Arceneaux) writes:
>> (I do
>>not recommend the GNU copyleft, which is much more restrictive, unless you
>>really support the Cult of Free Software.  Many people find it legally
>>difficult or impossible to use copylefted software.)
>
>I recomend using Copyleft if you intend to make a contribution of your
>code to society.  If your intent is indeed to benefit others with your
>program, then Copyleft will ensure that no one can eventually prohibit
>some group from thus benefitting.

The question here is not whether you want to "benefit others", because
releasing good software will do that regardless of which licensing policy
you choose.  The underlying issue is how concerned you are about others
who do not share your altruistic views, and whether you feel so strongly
about what they might do that you are willing to prohibit use of your
software by people who won't or can't promise to be good.  Not everyone
who is constrained by his company's lawyers is a bad guy, and insisting
on a promise of good behavior will deny the benefits of your software
to many people.

Assorted variants of my software, notably my regular-expression package,
appear in a variety of commercial no-sources-available software products.
This does not bother me; indeed, it pleases me, because the people who
buy and use that software are getting a better product this way.
-- 
It is not possible to both understand  | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry
