🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <D3KFrr.8up@kithrup.com>, Mike Stump  <mrs@cygnus.com> wrote:
>In article <3grc9d$mkb@umd5.umd.edu>,
>Peter Brewer <brewer@hamlet.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>>AS I previously stated to this forum and to rms, the LPF/FSF should take
>>the same 'tack' as the Consumer's Union and *not* allow any company to use
>>the LPF/FSF/GNU name to lend credibility to their commercial products. 
>>This seems counterproductive to the stated goals of the LPF and FSF. 
>
>It may seem that way to you, but that doesn't seem to be the case to
>me.
>
>I don't quite follow what your suggesting here.  You think Cygnus
>should be prohibited from stating facts like they are the maintainers
>for certain packages?  Or else what?  They be sued?  On what grounds?
>Or else they loose maintainership?  Wouldn't this hurt the goals of
>the FSF?  

it would be better if cygnus did not claim to be "officially recognized" by
GNU/FSF to do the work of supporting those packages.  GNU/FSF is better if
they do not give out endorsements to particular groups.

>I mean we do dump millions of real dollars into advancing
>the software.

not just for "the better world".  for profit.  (as i said earlier, there is
nothing wrong with pursuing profit.  just that, one must not pontificate
above one's motivation.)