🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <377lfj$iqj@nntp1.u.washington.edu> tzs@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

   Craig Burley <burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
   >The above paragraph is correct only if you replace "arguments FSF used"
   >with "arguments [Tim Smith] repeatedly puts in the FSF's mouth".  The
   >FSF has never made claims of the sort he makes above -- if it has,
   >I'd like to see them posted verbatim (and they'd better say "if the
   >only implementation of that _language_"...).

   Look back at your own postings from the last month, and you'll see
   them.  You carefully explained, point by point, exactly why you thought
   FSF was legally correct in regard to gmp/RIPEM.  I used your post as a
   model and applied those arguments to languages.

No, you didn't.  Perhaps you extracted certain points I made and
applied those arguments to languages, but that's about as useful
as taking the following explanation of a homicide

    "A homicide is when an individual or group of individuals willfully
     acts to kill another person"

and extracting "willfully acts to kill", applying it to "willfully
acts to hurt", and claiming that the original explanation could be
interpreted so that any time an actor, such as on a stage during a
play, strikes another actor, he's committed homicide.

If you insist on saying that I've already made the arguments you
pretend I have concerning languages, then I hereby publically call
you a liar unless you post literal, contextual transcriptions of
my posts saying that.  But changing nouns, such as pretending my saying
"the GPL covers entire programs" is the same as saying "the GPL covers
entire languages", doesn't count.

   Also, note carefully that I didn't say FSF made these claims with regard
   to languages.  I said that the arguments used for gmp/RIPEM could be used
   with languages.

Meanwhile, you seem to have a very short memory.  Here is an
extract from _your_ post:

>If we apply the arguments FSF used last year during the gmp/RIPEN
>debate, then if the only implementation of that language is GPL'ed,
>you could only distribute source code written in that language
>under GPL, because leaving it to the end user to obtain the compiler
>is equivalent to shipping the compiler yourself if there is only
>one compiler available.

Your statement seems clear enough to me.  Are you now admitting that,
in fact, the FSF's position on gmp/RIPEM clearly does _not_ apply
to languages, or will you return to the previously posted position,
that "the arguments FSF used last year" _already_ cover the languages
case?

(Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I'm beginning to wonder whether you
are being intentionally deceptive or just amazingly successful at
hitting gray areas.  There is a difference between saying "your
explanation for X also means Y" and saying "your explanation for X
could be applied to Z and thus also mean Y".  The former means the
explanation already means Y and that there is no need to modify X
significantly to account for it; the latter means that the explanation
must be significantly modified to mean Y, and thus implies that the
person making the explanation did not necessarily have any intention,
or concern perhaps, for it to mean Y.  I claim your wording in
your recent original post had the former wording, and thus implied
that the FSF intended, or was not concerned if, it's explanations
for its position on gmp/RIPEM were directly applicable to a
situation involving a GPLed compiler being the only one compiling
a particular language.  If you intended to say something along the
latter lines, that the FSF could use some of its reasoning as a
basis for making such a case, along with introducing new reasoning
and/or explicit copyrights on languages, then perhaps you could have
saved us some trouble by making that clear.  Or was clarity regarding
such a sensitive issue in a public forum insufficiently important to
you when you wrote the post?)
--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu