On 8/3/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mostly I care about the freedom to pursue what is for me > > both an intellectual interest and a trade, on terms which more or less > > reflect an accurate perspective on the surrounding law and economics. > > Misrepresentations and charlatanry draw my scrutiny, whether they come > > from saints or sinners. > > I have no problem with you pursuing any such intellectual interests. > > However, this probably isn't the right list for posting random facts.
Sigh. Did anyone else have trouble understanding that "both an intellectual interest and a trade" referred to computer programming? Do you not think these "random facts" are relevant to assessing whether two prominent individuals' preferences and assertions should have the effect that they currently do on your and my pursuit of that trade, and to whether they can be relied on for a disinterested analysis of the applicable law? Have these questions no relevance to debian-legal? > I'd suggest debian-curiosa. Or, if anyone wants to create it: debian-saints. Having intimated that I thought it likely that RMS's role in the FSF had made him a rich man, and having been called on that by Diego Bierrun, I felt obliged to report on what facts I could easily find in the public record -- which, as it turns out, don't lend much support to the idea that he is piling up personal assets. (But I doubt he misses a meal very often; I expect his other material needs are more than met, including an ample supply of computer-related toys; as near as I can tell he has done nothing for any reason other than because he feels like it since 1985 or so, if ever; and I count myself as rich partly for similar reasons, whatever one's net worth may be.) I would not have taken the trouble of that particular inquiry except in response to Diego's accusation of slander, which would not have been accurate anyway but did prompt me to go the extra mile. - Michael