>> I don't think there's any viable resolution to this one. 
>> The right answer
>> is that if you need to keep your software proprietary, 
>> then you need to
>> write is all yourself.

OR combine only PD source into your creations.

> I strongly disagree with this. A truly 'altruistic' 
> upstream provider of
> software can (should?) be willing to allow people the 
> freedom (!) to use
> their software, expand on it, and not have to open up the 
> result.

Debating "truly altruistic" could keep this thread going 
'for a while'.
Each true altruist probably needs to decide for themselves 
what constitutes true altruism. One may decide that this is 
best served by making a gift of their product to the 
invisible hand to do with it as it will. Which is your 
desire. Others may decide that the invisible hand tarnishes 
and resticts and that the ultimate altruism is to give their 
bounties to all who will give the derivatives to all. Such 
is their right, should they choose, unless you are able to 
compell others to behave the way that you want them to.

> For example: let's say I use an open-source implementation 
> of a web-server,
> but then add in a lot of my own code to built the content 
> that is served
> out. Why should my efforts be _required_ to be released to 
> others?

Just because!

ie Because it is widely albeit not universally held that the 
owner of something of value has the right to decide how to 
utilise it.
Many hold that there is no other reason needed.
The counter argument is that "you" have a right to decide 
how others may use their property or how you may use their 
property, regardless of their wishes. In the absence of 
absolute moral or even enforceable legal rights you MAY be 
able to do this - but only by going against the wishes of 
the "owner" of said property.

You may as well ask eg "If I use a car which I found by the 
roadside as the basis for my latest hotrod why should my 
creation be_required_to be released to others?" (Local 
Sheriff and original owner come to mind).

> [But I don't say that an upstream provider _must_ allow 
> this, only that they
> _can_ (and maybe should)].

PD and similar is an available option, and some use it.



        Russell

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist