🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #73103

Re: effect of LPF boycott of Apple

#73103
From: John Coolidge
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1991 20:52
41 lines
3173 bytes
ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes:
>I am amused to note that LPF/FSF make an assumption that anyone who
>supports ANY of their positions will support all of their positions
>(with the converse belief that anyone who opposes any one of their
>positions is an enemy of their philosophy!)    This particular
>monochromatic view of the world is much more damaging to their effort
>than all the high-sounding words that Dr Stallman can ever speak can to
>to promote that cause.

I've been burned by this more than once. As anyone who actually reads
the things I'm saying should know, the reason I support porting things
to Apple machines and oppose the boycott is because I _like_ the idea of
free software, and I see the boycott as a truly brain-damaged idea that
does much more to sabotage the course of free software than it does to
help things. They should know by now that I hate the application of
current copyright and patent law to software (but that I'm in favor of
short-term protection for user interface and software process
innovation, which is still a contrary position).

I've been accused more than once of being an anti-FSF'er that is trying
to profit from their work to aid various evil causes. I find this
incredibly offensive (more so than the asinine 'terrorist' comment).
Whatever happened to the idea that two reasonable well-meaning people
could differ about ways of obtaining a certain goal without one of them
accusing the other of opposing the goal instead of the means? Sure, you
don't have to _like_ the fact that someone opposes the means you choose
to the common end, but why deny that they can reasonable hold different
views on that point and still be in favor of the common goal?

--John

P.S. I've been informed, via email, that Richard Stallman is not a PhD
 (and, hence, not 'Dr. Stallman', as I referred to him). I seem to
 recall that the MacArthur Foundation grant announcement referred to him
 as Dr. Does anyone know for sure which is correct?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Coolidge     Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu   UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge
Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself)
Copyright 1991 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed.
You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1991Nov6.205259.26616@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!zeus.ieee.org!sdd.hp.com!wupost!m.cs.uiuc.edu!coolidge
References: <36919@usc.edu> <1991Oct29.122921.24775@donau.et.tudelft.nl> <0d3O1ZG00j5u4547EG@andrew.cmu.edu> <1991Nov5.010851.24815@wolves.uucp>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,64e514debf1e6e73
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1991-11-06 13:14:35 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!zeus.ieee.org!sdd.hp.com!wupost!m.cs.uiuc.edu!coolidge
From: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: effect of LPF boycott of Apple
Message-ID: <1991Nov6.205259.26616@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 6 Nov 91 20:52:59 GMT
References: <36919@usc.edu> <1991Oct29.122921.24775@donau.et.tudelft.nl> <0d3O1ZG00j5u4547EG@andrew.cmu.edu> <1991Nov5.010851.24815@wolves.uucp>
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
Reply-To: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Lines: 41