🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MCLAY.91Jan27011004@thud.cme.nist.gov>, mclay@cme.nist.gov (Michael Mclay) writes:
> In article <9101161300.AA22325@zardoz.coral.com> don@zardoz.coral.com (Don Dewar) writes:
> 
> RMS,
> 
> Please reread the following excerpt of a posting concerning your
> attempts to impose morality on others.  While I like many of the
> FSF products, I absolutely disagree with your distribution tactics.
> [ ... ]
> Anything more than that is going to restrict the distribution of the
> FSF software.

[ Flame warning ]
I think you're confused. First off, the FSF and RMS don't owe
_anything_ to _anyone_. They have no obligation whatsoever to provide
any software to anyone for any reason. 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. I personally disagree with many
of the stated tenets of the FSF, but I absolutely support the FSF's
right to do whatever they want with their code. Write it yourself if
you don't like it, but don't whine because you can't freely distribute
someone else's code.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll                "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired"
Epoch Development Team                 - Susan
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!cs.uiuc.edu!carroll