🚀 go-pugleaf

On 23 Jul 91 08:50:56 GMT,
acmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (albert chin) said:

albert> let's take another example. we all know that the FSF does not support
albert> the Macintosh as a computer platform for GNU software. now, let's say i
albert> want to port GNUsed to my Mac IIci. i also am aware that the FSF doesn't
albert> care about my port (i.e. they will not support it). however, does this
							    	     ---------
albert> mean that they will refuse to help me if i am stuck in a certain routine?
	-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. 

They have no wish to waste limited resources on something they do
not care about.

albert> if this is so, then the FSF does not believe in free software. what they
albert> do believe in is 'free software' insofar as the goals of the FSF are
albert> advanced. 

No. 

It means that they do not wish to spend their time fixing YOUR
problem. This is a twisted example. The FSF gives out their source
code. They engage in no practice to PREVENT or HINDER your attempts at
porting things to your Macintosh. You are implying that your action of
attempting to port some GNU software forces the FSF to help you. 


albert> there was a philosopher who said something to the effect, "i might not
albert> believe what you believe but i'll defend to my death your right to
albert> believe it".
Yes, but this is not what you have said.

When one person decides to cut off access to newsgroups to a larger
number of people (even if they can get access elsewhere), it seems
that this person is imposing his will in an unethical manner on the
others. I would argue that access to newsgroups is not any sort of
protected right, but rather a gift. Access is always avaliable
dial-up, if it is desired strongly enough, so no one is being totally
deprived of the ability to get news. Therefore, all that is happening
is their access is being hindered, and in this hindering, perhaps they
are being forced to think a little about issues they have not thought
about. 

Yes, I have sympathy for those who cannot get their news, but I am not
sure that it is a morally wrong action to cut them off as a statement
of something one believes in.


--
Andrew Mauer
(andrewm@wpi.wpi.edu)