🚀 go-pugleaf

Rick Farris <ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!serene!rfarris@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu> writes:
>In article <8812091624.AA14077@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> tower@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:
>~Please note that if you have to buy tapes from someone, buying them from
>~FSF helps create more GNU software.  All the surplus from tape sales
>~goes to pay FSF programmers and technical writers.
>
>And if you buy emacs from Unipress, the surplus goes to paying
>Unipress programmers and technical writers.  What's the point?

The point is that the Free Software Foundation is a not-for-profit
organization, and the software they develop is free*.  While one may
not agree philosophically with the principle of Software Socialism,
the FSF *is* providing a service of great benefit to the community.
Can you say the same about any for-profit organization?  Would you
rather fund more free software or some company president's Jaguar?

*We need a better word than free.  Most people mistakenly interpret
this to mean "without cost" rather than "without restriction".  (A sad
commentary on society, particularly in a country founded on
freedom...)  The obvious alternatives: "emancipated" and "sovereign"
or "sovran" seem somewhat cumbersome. 

=========
The opinions expressed above are mine.

"The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be."
					-- Paul Valery