🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MIB.93Jan11161516@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

>In article <1993Jan9.025025.19137@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>Please consider learning to edit the header.

MIB:
>Please consider learning not to use public mailing lists as a way to
>attempt to be condescending to people.

Nuance: whilst your earlier attempts to deal with the message header
were entirely unsuccessful, I have never failed to be condescending to
people on a public mailing list, whenever I wished to do so.  Please
try not to confuse yourself into thinking that I am under any sort of
obligation to love you, my evident neighbor, as I love those truly
deserving of such affection.

>>In article <MIB.93Jan8191428@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>>mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

MIB:
>>>Even if a later version of the GPL (say version 3) does the nasty
>>>thing you suggest, you can still distribute under the terms of GPL
>>>version 2.  "Version 2 of the GPL" is a static, unalterable, legal
>>>document.  The later publication of a version 3 does not somehow
>>>magically change the wording of version 2.

MZ:
>>This is correct, but you could still restrict the GPL, and follow by
>>licensing subsequent releases under the new version thereof, leaving
>>the dreaded software hoarders with nought but obsolete "free" software.

MIB:
>It's also important to remember that the FSF is a public charity.  The
>laws of Massachusetts restrict it in many ways.  If the FSF tried to
>do as you suggest, then we would likely be promptly shut down.

I suggest that you keep these golden words in mind, whilst attempting
to justify your foundation's boycott of Apple.  In the meantime, I
propose to do my best to force you to face a choice between revising
the terms of the GPL, or losing your status as a public charity.

MIB:
>>>Moreover, changing the GPL in such a way would violate the terms of
>>>the assignments people have made when donating sofwtare to the FSF.
>>>(This is a legal transfer of copyright; merely GPL-ing does not cause
>>>such a transfer.)  Those assignments guarantee to the author that the
>>>FSF will distribute under terms essentially like those of the GPL.

MZ:
>>The ramifications of the alleged terms of copyright assignments are a
>>private matter, which concerns no one but you and the authors of the
>>donated software; hence, unlike the GPL, the contracts in question are
>>not subject to public scrutiny; consequently you must forgive me for
>>not paying too much attention to your claim.

MIB:
>Any significant contribution to GNU software is bound by these
>assignments.  The contracts *are* subject to public scrutiny; I can
>send you a copy if you are interested in the wording.  (Remember, we
>are a public charity; we can't just march on doing whatever we
>please.)  Any significant piece of GNU software incorporates such
>contributions, and so such a modification of the GPL would be illegal.

If you truly welcome public scrutiny, I invite you to post the said
copyright transfer contracts in this venue.  I furthermore suggest
that you do so, while addressing my charge that the FSF openly and
actively seeks to own and control all software in any way derived from
GNU, or any fragments thereof.

>--
>Michael I. Bushnell      |     Watch, for you do not know when the master of 
>+1 617 625 4518 (H)     -+-    the house will come, in the evening, or at
>+1 617 253 8568 (W)      |     midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning, 
>mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu       |     lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.


cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Les beaulx bastisseurs nouveaulx de pierres mortes ne sont escriptz
en mon livre de vie.  Je ne bastis que pierres vives: ce sont hommes."