🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep15.185227.2692@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Why _does_ the FSF allow its software to be ported to Apple machines, even if
>it refuses to do so itself?  

Because that would be contrary to Stallman's (and, therefore, the FSF's)
goals, which are to make all software freely distributiable.  To further
that goal, the FSF has a suite of programs which can be distributed freely
(requiring only that the source be made available if binaries are
distributed), and few restrictions on what can be done with it.  Placing a
restriction like that on it would be against Stallman's goals and desires.

He just doesn't want to help Apple (or Lotus, for that matter) at all.  If
someone else wants to, there is nothing he can really do, short of
persuading that person that what (s)he is doing is wrong.

Just because the software is freely distributable doesn't mean that any and
all changes you make to it are going to be merged back into the FSF's
versions.  And the FSF has chosen to not accept any Apple-dependent changes.

Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "You can't get lost in one room, no matter how
sef@kithrup.COM  |  little effort you make to learn your way around."
-----------------+    -- William E Davidsen (william@crd.GE.COM)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.