: >: anyone to stop development of PD software from which the FSF
: >: or MS benefits (sorry for the repeats.)
:
: >  Nobody ever suggested that.  They did suggest that they would not do so
: >themselves.  
:
: the GPL implies (in the preamble) that companies like MS are trying to
: take your freedom away.

  Microsoft (MS?) doesn't release public domain software - I thought we
were discussing GNU vs PD for source released software?  Nobody but Microsoft
can maintain Microsoft code - sounds like a taking away of a freedom
to me.

: >There is no motivation to myself to ever release software
: >into the public domain  (At least not with my name on it - I don't have
: >the time for support questions for software that will never be of any
: >return benifit for myself).
:
: Thats a fine attitude taken by most people who release proprietary
: software, be it MS or the FSF (or me, in another life :-)

  Get real - I am offering software where users are free to choose their
own support avenue (IE: Destroying a software monopoly).  Do you not see
that as drastically different than propriatary sofware where you have
no choices, no freedoms, and often no support?

: I'd say you clearly work in the UNIX world, which is too small and

  No, I work with AmigaDOS at the moment, ultough I will be upgrading
to a Unix varient of some sort in the future.

: Had you worked in the MS-DOS, OS/2 or Windows world (and I dont want to
: start a flame war about this), I can assure you that you could
: find many proprietary programming packages whose source is available.

  I have used these platforms, and the amount of source released software
is EXTREMELY MINIMAL (That of course is only part of the reason I would
not buy into yet another propriatary O.S. - I'm dumping AmigaDOS because
of it's SINGLE support company).

  For me, the GNU licence talks to the issue of support monopolies, and
it is because I am not willing to put up with monopolies that I don't
buy into propriatary software, and don't release propriatary software.
PD softwre to me says 'This version is Free, but derivative work will be
propriatary and thus defeat the intent of releasing it
"freely distributable"'.  It's only one step away from me actually
releasing propriatary code which doesn't help the
advancement of the tools.

: At least when my source uses Borland's clreol() or gotoxy() or other
: Borland-only functions, Borland doesn't come after me claiming they
: have some rights on my source! Imagine if rms's claims were found
: valid by the court, and Borland (and everyone else) did.

  A different debate, but one that I don't think is as clear cut as
you seem to be trying to push.  GNU Software is released for a reason,
and using it in order to produce propriatary code defeats the intent
of the use of the licence (At least it woould defeat the intent of my
use of the licence).  Does every author have to put out a 200 page
document describing their licence in order to more obviously
explain the intent of their licence?

  It's all a question of intent.

  I'm not 'giving away' software, I'm 'liberating' software in the hopes that
I will get the same in return.  Propriatary software in no way helps my work,
so since they have no way to reciprocate the help my software might give
them, I'm not willing to help them.  I provide support for my software
with the 'trust' that this support of others will lead to more support
of the software (In a number of ways).

: Michael Golan
---
 Russell McOrmond, Ottawa Ontario, Canada    | Opinions expressed
 Freenet: aa...@freenet.carleton.ca (Faster) | in this message are
 Home: r...@Atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca               | my own and I
 FidoNet 1:163/109           Current WPL     | represent nobody
 WPL Help 1:1/139         keeper of sources. | else.