home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!netnews!capd.jhuapl.edu!waltrip
- From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
- Subject: Re: Do you want free objects from FSF?
- Message-ID: <1992Aug25.210521.1@capd.jhuapl.edu>
- Lines: 31
- Sender: usenet@netnews.jhuapl.edu
- Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
- References: <1992Aug20.033858.2089@prim> <Bt95AH.9vt@monitor.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:05:21 GMT
-
- In article <Bt95AH.9vt@monitor.com>, shawn@monitor.com writes:
- > Dave Griffiths writes
- >>As for a binary object library coming under GNU licence conditions, this
- >>is a _bad_ idea because it shuts out commercial developers and thus
- >>ultimately hurts the consumer. I mean suppose someone went and developed
- >>AREXX for the NeXT and then slapped a GNU licence on it - it would be
- >>useless because no commercial apps would be able to use it.
- >
- > Perhaps this discussion should move to c.s.n.advocacy, but.....
- >
- > I think that any entrant into this marketplace is exciting and should be
- > encouraged. Competition is healthy. If there are good FREE objects out
- > there and folks start using them and NeXT's popularity increases then
- > there'll be demand for RESALEABLE objects for use in COMMERCIAL apps.
- Mmm. If I re-call the GNU/FSF license correctly, it doesn't
- prohibit the re-sale of GNU software. It merely requires that the
- source be included whether you sell it or give it away.
-
- Which reminds me: Isn't it
- Glenn Reid who includes source when you buy certain of his products
- for the NeXT? I understand it provides great examples on how to
- do certain things and lets people customize it with those features
- they just have to have.
-
- [...material deleted...]
-
- c.f.waltrip
-
- Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>
-
- Opinions expressed are my own.
-