Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:16:15 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <85ca46a5-03d8-41ad-ab7e-8e5c3b781e48@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:29758 On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 03:41:32 -0400, Andrew Haley wrote: > Rod Pemberton wrote: >> Also, the GPL has more restrictive terms. > > Surely the GPL has *less* restrictive terms: it's impossible for > anyone to make GPL code unfree, or make it into a proprietary product. > So, anyone who receives GPL code is free to study it, to change it, > and so on. > That's true only for someone who confuses/conflates "*less*" with "*more*". NOT being able to do something with the code, which is what you've stated, is more restrictive, not less. You are not free, or "unfree", according to what you just stated, to use the code commercially, i.e., for a proprietary product. With MIT and BSD licenses you are free to do just that, and employ programmers in the process. Rod Pemberton