In article ,
 "Bill Buckels"  wrote:

> "John B. Matthews"  wrote in message
> news:nospam-B18A27.13162223102008{at}news.motzarella.org...
> >Aren't open source licenses a way to retain copyright while giving way
> >software?
> 
> Yes they are and I always include my source code with my programs and 
> my own licencing for the occasion.

I didn't mean to denigrate the educational value of your (considerable) 
oeuvre. The Aztec C Museum is an extraordinary work. What license do you 
use? Sorry, I didn't see it on the site?

> But I disagree with Stallman's totalitarianism.
> 
> http://www.fsf.org/

I thought he was more of a leftist:

http://www.stallman.org/>

Looking at the list of causes he espouses, I can't help but wonder how 
tempted he was by clauses like "free for non-military use" or
"free for 
proponents of ." I like his no-strings-attached concept 
for using free software. I'm guessing it's the redistribution- 
of-derived-works part of the GPL you find onerous.

> >> I've never met a doctor or a lawyer who gives their time for nothing.
> >I've never met a doctor who doesn't.
> 
> I meant gives their time "exclusively for nothing" Dr. John.

Fair enough.

> Back again to Stallman's totalitarianism, and I'll clean that up by 
> withdrawing the comment altogether, but my point is really that 
> software authors should be remunerated as in every profession.

Agreed.

> If I'd said "Bricklayers" I'd probably have got a Brick in the head:) 
> but I can't begin to count the number of times that people who can 
> afford a repair shop have phoned me to fix their kid's computer after 
> hours over the last 30 years when they hear that I develop software.

Sympathy. Inexplicably, my Windows using relatives find my Mac advocacy 
off-putting. :-)
 
> Again, comment withdrawn.

-- 
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
http://home.roadrunner.com/~jbmatthews/
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32