🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SJA.89Oct21175221@sirius.hut.fi>, sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari
Jalovaara) writes:
> No, IBM and Apple are not about politics.  It is FSF that is trying to
> distribute politics with "free" software.

So if you don't like the political baggage that comes with GNU
software, don't use it!  You're certainly entitled to disagree with
rms', or anyone else's, opinions.

> In my understanding, book burning often also seems to imply
> willingness to use violence against the authors (and maybe others
> who think similarly.)

What?!  Are you implying that rms is advocating violence?

> (Any sci.philosophy.people around?  I find this a frightening idea.
> Because not only did Gandhi break the law for his beliefs, so did his
> murderer.  How am I to know which laws to obey?

I don't know diddly about Finnish political history, but in the U.S.A.
we're raised on the concepts of Freedom and civil disobedience.
Rather than finding them frightening, we find the thought of not
having them frightening.  How do you know which laws to obey?  Your
conscience will tell you that.  But if your conscience tells you it's
okay to kill whoever you want, you'll find yourself in pretty slim
company.

> One problem is that if I like their policies now, contribute software
> to them and *afterwards* they do something ugly, my work will still be
> used by them to power the new policies I did not know of.

This is what's known as a "calculated risk".  Could rms be a commie
alien trying to take over the universe using free software?  Sure.

> I'd also suggest there are contributors to GNU who only want to
> share their work and work on a free operating system but do not
> completely agree with FSF's policies such as boycotting.  Maybe some
> of the latter are not entirely happy that everyone can't use their
> software and can't help them with their software.

So what?  People make incorrect assumptions all the time.  It's not
like rms is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  All you have to do
is read the manifesto, interview, and Apple documents that come with
the software.

Look, you pays your money and you takes your choice.  If you don't
care what people do with your code, by all means, make it public
domain.  If you want to charge for binaries and refuse to distribute
source, go ahead.  If you want to donate your software to a cause,
more power to you.

But please don't go on and on about how your preference is right and
mine is wrong.  At least, not in *my* church.

Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)