🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C08tEz.2tF@cs.psu.edu> 
schwartz@roke.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) writes:

>tob@world.std.com (Tom O Breton) writes:

TOB:
>>Pardon my jumping in, but it does not seem particularly obnoxious or
>>dishonest to me to have a short english word in front of ..Software
>>Foundation instead prepending the name with a long paragraph explaining a
>>host of details.

SS:
>How about the word "Shared", then?  I think it communicates the facts
>(if not the politics) better than "Free" does.  Too late now, though.

Mea culpa.  I wish I had never suggested "Free Software Foundation" as
an allegedly neutral alternative to Stallman's preferred "Frenetics".
I agree that "Shared" (perforce) is an apt adjective for the current
state of affairs; then again, had I not thought that the end result
would be free, I would not have been likely to get involved in
promoting it.

In article <9301022105.AA10470@raisin-scone> 
tower@ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:

LHT:
>In retrospect, I wish we had name FSF the:
>	Software Freedom Foundation
>but it's way to late now.

Well, I wish you had named it something else, too.  But surely your
proposed alternative makes as much of a difference as Peoples' Front
of Judea -- from Judean Peoples' Front.  At issue here is not the word
order, but your claim to freedom.

>enjoy -len
>
>Member, League for Programming Freedom.  Ask: lpf@uunet.uu.net 

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."