🚀 go-pugleaf

carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes one of many flames in response
to mclay@cme.nist.gov (Michael Mclay)...

Mclay says...
> > While I like many of the
> > FSF products, I absolutely disagree with your distribution tactics.
...and goes on to detail why he thinks FSF's policies are counterproductive.

Carroll replies:
> [ Flame warning ]
> I think you're confused. First off, the FSF and RMS don't owe
> _anything_ to _anyone_...

I know you're confused.  First off, Mclay didn't say that either the FSF or
RMS owed him anything.

>...They have no obligation whatsoever to provide
> any software to anyone for any reason...

...nor did he say they did.  You're creating a straw man.

>...If the FSF is willing to accept
> reduced distribution in order to enforce certain rules on use of their
> code, that's their decision to make...

Their prerogative wasn't questioned.  Mclay was simply trying to make the
point that *in his view* FSF's policies are counterproductive.  This is the
same point that many other people have tried to make.  The point is under-
stood by some FSF folks--notably Stallman, who says something to the effect
of "yes, I see what you're saying, but I'm placing this particular
principle at the top of my list."  But it gets drowned out by FSF zealot-
advocates who must close their ears and shout that there's nothing wrong.
They just can't seem to believe that FSF is--BY CHOICE--not placing itself
in the mainstream of free-software efforts.

It doesn't bother me that the FSF takes a more radical position--it isn't
the choice I'd make, yet there are reasons for it.  But I'm fed up with
the strident Defenders of the Faith behaving like they've got a monopoly on
truth and right.  Every time you shout down someone who questions you, you
risk creating another opponent to free software.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...Mr. Natural says, "Use the right tool for the job."