🚀 go-pugleaf

jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes:
>3) I've never noticed any "censorship" - I've noticed this claim once
>   or twice - but I've never seen it substantiated.

I think this claim is mainly raised with respect to non-misc gnu.*
groups. Whenever anyone posts a request for information about ports of
GNU utilities to the MacOS or A/UX, postings erupt stating that
discussion of such ports is inappropriate for the gnu.* groups, despite
the fact that discussion of ports for other machines is never
restricted. This may not be censorship, but it's spiritually similar
(remove the offending information rather than have to deal with it).

>4) Double-standards are prevelant throughout the industry - why should
>   the FSF be held up to a different standard?  Also, there isn't a
>   real double-standard - only Apple (and Lotus?) have performed an
>   action which has a direct bearing on the FSF's GNU project -
>   patenting is *not* a threat as long as the patents aren't enforced.
>   Also, note that applying the boycott as an "all-or-nothing"
>   situation, as you seem to want it to be, results in the FSF doing
>   what Donald Knuth does.  Writing software for machines that don't
>   exist! (ie., machines that they aren't boycotting)

So? What's the point of supporting machines whose vendors are doing evil
things for the industry at large? Patenting _is_ most definitely a
threat whether or not the patents are enforced, unless the patent-holder
is willing to sign away the right to enforce the patent. Failure to
enforce a patent does not bar future enforcement, while failure to
enforce a copyright does constitute a barrier. In any case, the chilling
effect for software patents already announced seems to be much higher
than the chilling effect of actual lawsuits in the user-interface arena
(there are a lot of GUI's coming out, but check out comp.compression for
cases where software patents have stifled a great deal of research
without any lawsuits being filed).

>  Not developing Mac software is the *right* of the FSF - it may be
>  childish, immature, short-sighted, narrow-minded, silly, idiotic and
>  futile or clever, ingenious, creative, useful and fun.  It matters
>  very little, really how you classify it.

This is certainly true; I don't think anyone is arguing that the FSF
should be forced to develop for the Mac. The main points of contention
seem to be that the boycott is, first, childish, short-sighted,
narrow-minded, idiotic, and futile; second, it's inconsistent with
developing for other "evil" companies' systems; and, third, attacks
should be restricted to the issue of development and purchase, not
silly accusations of "terrorism", of accusing Apple employees of being
evil, etc. 

>> The fight against Apple is not worth the collateral dammage.  People
>> are going religious over this thing and it's disgusting.

>  What collateral damage?  

The collateral damage to the cause of free software. We're developing
the attitude that free software is only for those who toe the line, who
are politically correct, who bow in the right direction every morning.
The boycott hurts the cause of free software much more than it helps it.
It removes exposure to free software from many people who might have
become avid supporters of the GNU project. It also materially
contributes to the success of software hoarders, because one major
source of competition is removed and people have to buy from hoarders
since they cannot choose to use free software. 

--John

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.