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: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 02:48:26 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 56 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:29762 On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:37:27 -0400, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 21/04/2014 18:16:16, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >> 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. > > Companies can use GPL code commercially on proprietary products. I know that. But, that's NOT what Andrew stated. That's why I clarified by stating the following in reference to what Andrew did say: "... according to what you just stated ..." You really seem to have failure to comprehend issues. > You are probably using a wireless router that is a proprietary > product that cost you money running on GPL code modified by > programmers employed by the company that you bought it from. Perhaps. If not this router, most likely one of the others. > The only requirement is that the company make the source > code available for free. How often do they actually do that? I.e., they frequently hide the fact they've done so in order to prevent leakage of proprietary interfaces or code. I know that I can't get source code from any of the router manufacturers for my products, GPL or otherwise. I can get free, binary firmware updates, while they provide them. Anyway, this is now way off the OP's topic now that you two decided to respond. Rod Pemberton