🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <hjbD3GvD2.6z2@netcom.com>, Hwa-Jin Bae <hjb@netcom.com> wrote:
>i have not decided what the spirit of GNU is on my own.

I have been studying it for 7 years now, and I won't claim that I
understand it fully.  Do you think you understand it?  Fully?  Why?

>it is clear that GNU/FSF stands for free flow of information.

It does?  Why?  How do you know this?  Is this your opinion, or a
fact?  Isn't the whole point of the GPL to restrict the free flow of
information?  Did you know that the sources to gcc are artifically and
actively restricted by the FSF?  Because they restrict and discourage
the free flow of information, why do you think they stand for the free
flow of information?

My point is that everything comes in shades, few statements like this
are either always true or always false.  They sometimes support the
free flow of information, not always support it.

>if you want to argue that this is wrong interpretation, you may.

I just did.  It is too simplistic to support much of anything.

>it's one thing to alpha-release something.  it's quite another to
>purposefully do what cygnus does.

What do we do?  Maybe I am just out of touch with what we do
now-a-days.  Maybe I am in the dark.  If so, enlighten me!

>i have confirmation of this from cygnus personnel, their current
>workers.

This could lend a lot of credibility to your arguments.  Use it, tell
us all exactally what Cygnus does!  I am interested.

>cygnus isn't simply delaying distribution of some of their software
>for alpha-testing purpose.

That is true, so what?

>they're doing it for marketing, promotion, and money.

Please name the prople that made specific decisions that you know
about, what those dicisions were, why they stated they made them.
Anything else is speculation.  I'll provide some real details and some
real facts below that prove the above it true, but I don't think it
does any harm.  You be the judge.  Let me know if you think it does.

For example, there is one patch to gcc/calls.c that it is my
responsibility to move from our tree into the FSF tree.  I have known
about it for a long time.  I have not moved it.  It causes substantial
problems on some machines.  Cygnus has an advantage over the FSF by
having this work in it's tree and not at the FSF.  I have so far
decided not to move it to the FSF.  Cygnus may in fact see revenue
that it would not otherwise see because of this decision I personally
made.  It would be reasonable to think, without knowing any further
facts surrounding it, that my motive was pure economics.  In some
respect, it is!  But there is a reality about it.  It takes hard work
and effort to get work into the FSF source tree for gcc.  My time is
very valuable to Cygnus and I have prioritized other tasks ahead of
that particular task.  It isn't that I don't want to move it, it is
just that I don't have the time to move it.  I perceive a cost to
Cygnus that I cannot justify to move the work at this time.

Now, more reality, I would love to see the work be moved over into the
FSF tree.  I would be more than happy to send the changes to anyone
that has what it takes to get the work (or the functionality) into the
FSF tree.  They would be doing me, and the FSF a favor by doing it.
We both would be grateful.

If you want to boycott us for this reason, go ahead.  But if you spend
money on proprietary alternatives, I feel you are doing more harm than
good.

The FSF understands the reality of this situation also.  I could send
them the patch, it would be rejected, this would be their decision,
and they would have prevented the free flow of information directly,
not I.  In fact, this may be the case, I cannot recall.  They know and
understand the problems we face (to some degree).  By choosing to not
work on it, they must share in the state of things.  You don't seem to
understand that it is a mutually agreed upon position.

In your eyes, are the above facts about Cygnus harmful?  I realize
that anytime one knows all the gory details of any business, there are
bound to be a few they don't like.  I am being open and honest, as I
want Cygnus to be an open and honest company.  I make that happen by
being that way myself.  Before you let the little details harm our
image, be sure you have corresponding details about others and
reasonably compare us.  I don't know many software companies that are
as open and honest as Cygnus.  I mean, some won't even acknowledge a
bug unless you convince them you can prove that there is a bug.  With
some you cannot even find out about know bug reports.  Cygnus goes far
out of its way to make information available.

>but you should also realize that no matter how you deny it, the fact
>remains that certain practices by cygnus are against free flow of
>information.

This is a true statement.  So what?  For example, we are against
putting up our entire product line for anonymous ftp, source code,
binaries and all as it will swamp our network link, consume more disk,
more human resources, increase the number of people that expect
support from us for free...  While it might be nice to do so, and I
agree with you there, the money is better spent fixing more bugs in
free software like gcc, g++ and gdb.  Wouldn't you agree?

In short, I don't see why you think you have any basis for your
position.  If you do, I wish to know what that basis is.  Please share
it with us.