Re: GNU License, Again

[none]

In article <mailman.1348.1180348459.32220.gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org>,
Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
>>   > 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.
>
>>   So the _goal_ is to ultimately get all software free, since said
>>   freedom is considered a vital right under the GNU philosophy (if
>>   not _the_ core right of the GNU philosophy).
>
>That is the goal of the GNU project and the FSF, but not of the GNU
>GPL.

I find it absolutely amazing that you can think that the explicitly
developed product of an individual and an organization dedicated the
development of a completely free software pool would develop a product
that does not in fact promte that goal.

>
>>   Hence the reason for requiring that any distribution of derivatives
>>   to have their full source code released under the GPL _in toto_,
>>   not just the GPL pars -- so that new code then enters the pool of
>>   free software and therefore contributes to the freedom of all
>>   users.
>
>Again, no, it is to keep said software free.  The GPL does not require
>you to distribute; if it did, you'd have a point, but it doesn't.  If
>the goal of the GNU GPL was to create a larger pool of free software,
>then the GNU GPL would require _all_ modifications to become public,
>but it doesn't, you are not required to distribute your hacks.

So you believe that's not the goal of the GPL simply because the
miniscule percentage of code that's never distributed isn't required to
be distributed?

You're kidding right?

BAJ