🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <D3K6xC.6In@kithrup.com>, Mike Stump  <mrs@cygnus.com> wrote:
>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 seems i have been studying it for just as long, and no, i do not claim
to understand it fully.  i do, however, claim to understand the philosophy
behind GNU movement -- that the information (especially in computer
software form) should be shared, free, and unrestricted.

>>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?  

do you disagree?  if so, why?  i have communicated with RMS, and he seems
to share this view.

>Isn't the whole point of the GPL to restrict the free flow of
>information?  

no, i believe the opposite is true. GPL attempts to maximize 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?

i believe you are wrong on this assumption.  GNU/FSF restriction is
targeted to minimize further restriction by others.  this is analoguous to
restricting criminal behaviors to minimize restrictions on public safety.

>
>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.
>

i will say that they always support free flow of information.
and yes, even when they restrict the offenders' access to free information,
to guarantee maximum access to free information, in the future, by all.

>>if you want to argue that this is wrong interpretation, you may.
>
>I just did.  It is too simplistic to support much of anything.
>

i believe your statements to be just as simplistic, if not more.
your argument seems to be based on the assumption that one cannot say a
sentence without all the necessary conditions of perfection.  rather than
focusing on a single sentence, one should consider the whole context of the
argument.  even when you consider the sentence alone, "GNU supports free
information." you cannot derive the type of argument based on exclusivity
-- such as GNU ALWAYS supports free flow of information.  not only is it
not correct to insert conditions (e.g. ALWAYS), but also a distortion of
the context.  besides, i believe, as stated above, GNU/FSF does always
support free flow of information, even when its policy dictates restriction
on some who intend to further restrict it.  the action of restriction, in
this case, is one of furthering its goal.  if all you are saying
is that that instantiation of restriction (on violators who do not believe
in sharing information) is a proof positive against GNU/FSF's goal to free
information, you have a weak point -- only subscribed to by pedants.

anyway, it's amazing to hear this from a cygnus person.

>>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!
>

talk to your co-workers that have already explained much to 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.
>

do you propose that i copy private email conversations to this forum?
if so, please post another article saying so.  i will then contact the
authors of those emails and post them if they agree to it.

>>cygnus isn't simply delaying distribution of some of their software
>>for alpha-testing purpose.
>
>That is true, so what?
>

ah... this is interesting.  your statement is in direct contrast to what i
have been told by yet another cygnus worker.  but i suppose you could be
right as well.

>>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.
>

i do not believe above to be harmful (your long description of moving the
fix to FSF tree) whether or not your personal motive is based on lack of
time or finanacial (as you mention).

i do believe that cygnus' marketing brochures that claim to advantage its
own customers by supplying them the stable releases before others get them
is against the GNU.  and this is harmful -- becuase it sets the precendence
by a well known company like cygnus -- that you can arbitrarily delay the
distribution of free software (i.e. restrict) for marketing/profit purpose.
whether this is practiced in great degrees in practice is besides the
point.  because it remains as a selling point for cygnus (why else would it
be in the marketing literature), but it is against GNU.   i believe that
RMS agrees with my view on this ( i have corresponded on this)

you should perhaps understand this point a bit more carefully.

>>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?

to hear that from a cygnus person in public is not at all what i expected.
this is pretty bad.  no, i do not agree that the money is better spent
fixing more bugs.  i believe that it is more important to make one's work
on GNU software available to all.  the motivation behind two goals (yours
and mine) are different.  one (yours) is bottom-line approach, where the
goal is less important than every day reality of running a company that
requires revnue.  the other (mine) is less practical, yet more in tune with
the goal.   i believe that it is wrong to compromise your goals as such.

>
>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.

i will, please declare your willingness to see private cygnus emails to be
posted here.