Re: GNU License, Again

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

>    >    So Richard talks explicitly about the _goal_ of the GPL, and
>    >    he does this immediately before listing a number of projects
>    >    that set out to create proprietary projects, and then were
>    >    forced by their use of GPLed software to license them under
>    >    the GPL.
>    >
>    > Which is to keep GPL software free, in this case, it kept GCC free.
>
>    Reality check.  GCC did not have a C++ frontend previously.  So it
>    did not "keep" what constituted GCC "free", but rather added
>    something new to it.
>
> The C++ front-end was a patch for GCC, so it kept GCC free.  If it
> didn't, then we would have a non-free fork of GCC.  So while it
> indirectly added something new (you can comply with the GPL by
> licensing the work under the same terms as the GPL), all it did was
> keep existing software free.

I thank you for this clear demonstration of your reasoning powers.  I
entertain no doubt that by now it is obvious to the reader what esteem
your arguments are worthy of.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum