🚀 go-pugleaf

Joe Buck writes:
>Does this mean that FSF must boycott AT&T/USL in the same way as they
>boycott Apple?  Not at all.  They are free to choose the most effective
>strategy for each opponent.  Apple makes its money selling hardware (their
>[...] USL makes its money selling software and Unix licenses.

Note that the FSF is not officially interested in boycotting USL.  The
FSF regards USL as just another company making money selling
proprietary software.  The FSF would like to make this obsolete, but
not out of any specific animosity towards USL.  Similarly, the choice
of Unix as the OS to clone again does not reflect any specific
animosity towards AT&T or USL.  FSF is not out to "get" USL.

FSF is not opposed to people making money; it is opposed to the
"proprietary" part.  The reason FSF is so violently opposed to Apple
is that Apple, by their lawsuits, are attempting to extend the scope
of what "proprietary" can cover.  USL, by contrast, have not attempted
to claim that the Unix interface is proprietary--they are just suing
for alleged violation of specific copyrights and trade secrets.
Whether USL wins or loses does not matter (much) to the FSF as the
lawsuit is unlikely to create any new case law on intellectual property.

Someone else (not Joe Buck), somewhere earlier in this thread, seemed
to be implying that one reason Apple is objectionable is because of
their supposed "outrageous" profit margin on the hardware they sell.
The FSF does not care one way or another what some company's profits are.
If XYZ, Inc. sells C-64 clones for $10,000 that cost $20 to make,
why should the FSF care?  Market forces will take care of this sort
of thing.  What the FSF is interested in is making software non-
proprietary.  Then market forces will take care of the current
artificially high software costs too.