🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <FRIEDMAN.92Aug13054402@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu> friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.103521.24421@cl.cam.ac.uk> ag129@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>This doesn't mean that the LPF endorses the FSF, or that the LPF has any
>interest in "free software".  It's much more conservative than that, and
>only objects to certain recent changes in copyright and patent law.  The
>LPF is a political organization, not a software house (some people might
>consider the FSF to be fairly political in nature, but if so it primarily
>makes its statement by actually producing free software, not by lobbying to
>have any laws changed).

The separation IMHO is very wise.  I, for example, endorse both the
practical work of the FSF, and the political position of the LPF.  I
am not sure I would endorse the *political* position of the FSF -- in
particular, I happily write software destined to be copyrighted by my
clients.

LPF's conservatism means I can join it (as I have) without any
reservations.  In this way I help support the practical efforts of the
FSF, which I am also glad to do.  If the two organizations were one, I
would be put in a very difficult situation.

Of course, if the only thing at stake were my support, this would not
be a big deal.  But I think a lot of people fall into the category of
loving FSF's work, wondering a bit about FSF's politics, but very
worried about wild extensions of intellectual property, which undo
centuries of precedents.  The combination of FSF software and LPF
politics was made to order for us.

-- 
Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc.
jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
137 E Fremont AVE #122, Sunnyvale CA 94087
"It is more often our modern poets who are dealing with stale