🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19468@comton.airs.com>, Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> wrote:
>brewer@umd5.umd.edu (Peter Brewer) writes:
>
>
>I do not understand what you are trying to say in this paragraph.  The
>independence of the FSF does not need protecting.  I do want to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>The FSF and the LPF are different organizations, and I think you are
>confusing them to some degree.
Perhaps subterfuge to allow such questionable practices?

>
>In any case, Cygnus does not have the FSF seal of approval, whatever
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that is, except in so far as Cygnus is the official maintainer of
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>various FSF programs (g++, gdb, gas, binutils).  
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>In fact, Cygnus does have a few
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(smaller) competitors, and Cygnus has not wasted time fighting with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>them.   *Yet*
^^^^^

I think that you have proven my point about bias, the potential for
nepotism, and the need to protect the FSF/LPF with your own statements
outlined above. The only reason you do not see this is because you
are biased.

>
>A good percentage don't care that the software is free,
>except that it means that they don't have to run a license manager.
They probably are only interested in supported virus-free code to
make management happy.

>
>I am a Cygnus employee.  I do not speak for it.
And thus you are biased and unable to speak objectively.