🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Jul3.201225.18096@ico.isc.com>, rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
> As I sit on the sidelines, I'm not sure whether the FSF's position is
> changing, or merely becoming more clear, but I think the timing of it all
> is quite unfortunate.  With the just-announced disastrous (IMO) decision
> for Lotus, it is important to have some strongly-worded statements from
> "the other side"--yet I think many of us are just now finding that FSF
> cannot speak for us because its position has become untenably radical
> and/or violates our standards of professional conduct.  For me, there's
> a fatal loss of focus in moving from challenging ridiculous software costs
> and licensing to challenging the entire publishing industry.

Well, I've been aware of the political feelings of the FSF for years, and
I've never been associated with them. It isn't something they publicize
well enough that anyone using their stuff knows about it, but it has
certainly never been secret. 

The views expressed here recently (here being comp.sources.d, I understand
this thread is fragmented) have not seemed to me to be inconsistent with
what I've always understood them to be, so I don't think they are changing.
They may are possibly becoming more clear in that occasionally, as in this
case, they become the subject of a debate, and that, of course publicizes
their views. I've never felt that the FSF could speak for me (or
vice-versa), because I do understand and disagree with their views.

All that having been said, read the message on the League for Programming
Freedom carefully. This is not the GNU manifesto. It appears to have been
written not to further the FSF's political views, but to mobilize
broad-based support for the specific idea of fighting against look and feel
lawsuits. I found nothing in it that I could not agree with, and after
checking on the status of my bank account, I will probably be sending in my
check.

I urge all of you to give this some serious thought. Read the message
carefully, and don't be biased against it because it comes from Richard
Stallman (if that would be your inclination). This is not a furtherance of
his own political views. It appears to me to be exactly what it looks like,
an attempt to mobilize against user interface copyrights and software
patents.

I may not be nearly as well known as rms, but I do disagree strongly with
his politics. I hope this gives a little credibility to the LPF among those
who also disagree with rms' politics and might be tempted not to give it a
close look. 
-- 
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp)     615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041        Manhattan, KS 66502, USA