🚀 go-pugleaf

SJA == Sakari Jalovaara <sja@sirius.hut.fi>
DCL == me <tale@pawl.rpi.edu>

SJA> So it *is* OK to disagree with FSF in gnu.misc.discuss after all.  Wow.

DCL> It has been right from day one; the FSF has not ever claimed otherwise.

SJA> Actually, it hasn't and they have; not on day one, but it seems this
SJA> policy has changed.  Wow.

SJA> Here are a couple of quotes from article <330@ncis.tis.llnl.gov>
SJA> posted to news.admin and gnu.misc.discuss: [deleted]

I stand by exactly what I said; you choose to go to sources outside
the FSF for misinformation.  The following is quoted from the the text
of the newgroup message which created gnu.misc.discuss.  It was also
posted to the group shortly after its creation.  Len == Len Tower, who
wrote the charter, although Bob Sutterfield was the one who touched it
up before final posting.

Len> This list is for serious discussion of freed software, the GNU
Len> Project, the GNU Manifesto and their implications.  It's THE place for
Len> discussion that is not appropriate in the other GNU mailing lists and
Len> gnUSENET newsgroups.
Len> 
Len> Flaming is out of place.  Tit-for-tat is not welcome.  Repetition
Len> should not occur.
Len> 
Len> Good READING and writing are expected.  Before posting, wait a while,
Len> cool off, and think.

I am trying now.  I've mulled over this message for more than a day
considering whether it is appropriate for the group and it's only
going about 52/48 in favour.  I have decided to post though because it
is important that the record be set straight with regard to the facts.

SJA> I have article <8905310246.AA00550@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> in gnu.gcc;
SJA> written by a member of FSF, proposing the blockade.  It does say

RMS> I am considering blocking messages which actually try to block
RMS> our work, such as his previous message.

SJA> [...]  I do not know whether the block was supposed to work
SJA> automatically by blocking every message from the domain
SJA> "apple.com" or whether the group was supposed to be monitored [...]
SJA> and only "harmful" messages blocked.

If you don't know, why do you present it as though you did?  You state
pretty directly in the document which you originally posted that the
proposal was to block messages from anyone working at Apple.  Even the
quote you have now dragged up from Richard, supposedly as proof, does
not support this.  Even further misinformation.  It smacks of
purposeful _dis_information.

SJA> I remember seeing an article saying that if a bison input file uses
SJA> bison-specific features the input file falls under the GNU copyright.

Bob Sutterfield has clarified the incorrectness of the assertion in
another article to this group.

SJA> Quite; the point is that if a programming assignment requires the use
SJA> of a tool, a non-GNU tool must be provided (or, if I understand the
SJA> FSF claim to the "%expect" keyword correctly, an equivalent tool must
SJA> *exist* so that FSF cannot claim ownership of the code.)

%expect just makes the parser generator shut up a little.  Perhaps you
are arguing about setting precedent, because it is far from a "must
have" of YACC input.  It is also not the case that a non-GNU tool
_must_ be provided.

SJA> Say I don't want my code to be sold [...]

[This is just an aside, and not an attempt to be antagonistic but just
a request for greater understanding on my part, but why wouldn't you
want you code to be sold?  If someone wants to pay for it, why are you
upset about that?]

SJA> 	* The modifications are so complex you can't duplicate them.
SJA> 	In this case, the users can choose between your free but
SJA> 	not-so-great program and the New and Improved commercial
SJA> 	version.  Without competition, they only would have one choice
SJA> 	- the incomplete version.  The more competitors there are, the
SJA> 	better (and cheaper, etc) programs they have to make to
SJA> 	stay in the competition.

DCL> I disagree with the conclusion you draw in the middle of this
DCL> paragraph.  It is not necessarily at all the case that without
DCL> competition they would have only one choice.  There is a lot of
DCL> excellent free software development which goes on which has absolutely
DCL> nothing to do with competition.

SJA> Certainly, there may be several different free versions.  But the
SJA> commercial version is *one* *more*.  Nothing wrong having one more
SJA> choice?

Now you are changing what you said.  You said, quite clearly, "they
only would have one choice".  The focus of your argument regarding
this shifted also, ending with that question.  No one ever said here
that something is wrong with having one more choice.

SJA> Some people would make the decision to go commercial with a public
SJA> domain gcc but, because gcc is GNU copyrighted, now release it under
SJA> the GNU copyright instead.

Which of course _is_ the whole point of the GPL.

SJA> Question: FSF probably has a list of porters of gcc.  How many of
SJA> those do you realistically think would have made their version
SJA> commercial, were it possible?  How many of those versions (different
SJA> back-ends) would have been re-made and released as public domain,
SJA> giving users a choice?  Are so many of the porters greedy hoarders?

The question confuses me.  What do you mean by commercial?  Not giving
the source code with the modifications they have made, but distributing,
for a price, only the binaries?

SJA> It seems to me that some people are saying they would like to
SJA> contribute work to a free operating system but, for some reason, don't
SJA> contribute to GNU.  Doesn't that strike you as odd?  Doesn't that
SJA> suggest that just maybe there is something wrong with GNU?

It suggests lots of possibilities, that being one of them.  Doesn't it
also suggest that just maybe there is something wrong with their
perception of GNU?

Dave
-- 
 (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))