🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <88PywB28w165w@mantis.co.uk> 
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>fgray@cardinal.ncsc.org (Frederick E Gray) writes:

>> In <1993Jan5.022956.19008@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>><zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu> (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>>Nonsense.  What I am saying is that I am not free to use GNU in any way
>>>I see fit; more importantly, nor am I free of legal obligation implicit
>>>in, and specific to its use.  Consequently, it is not free.  Is this so
>>>hard to understand?

FEG: 
>>It is ridiculous to claim that a "freedom" must entail no obligations.

M:
>True in general.  But in this specific case, it is demonstrably true that
>software *can* be free with no obligations.

A nuance: I did say "specific to its use".  TeX comes with an implicit
obligation to its owner, and so does X; nevertheless it is undeniable
that neither of these obligations is comparable to the one imposed on
the programmer by the GPL.  Again, in the standard sense of this word in
the context of intellectual property, the GPL is expressly designed to
automatically *appropriate* on behalf of the FSF all code which contains
a fragment of GNU.

M:
>One Fallacy of Accident shot down.  Next?

Try not to forget that you are dealing with a cult.

>mathew

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