Linux-Advocacy Digest #843, Volume #32 Sat, 17 Mar 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (T. Max Devlin)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (T. Max Devlin)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:13 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:40:24
>"Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:31:58 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >I think we are at about the point in the argument where it is
>> >time to present some evidence that the restrictions are required
>> >or even useful. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary in
>> >terms of code that remains freely available without the GPL.
>>
>> g++. MCC would not have released a free C++ front end Except that the
>> GPL on gcc forced them to.
>
>Why is it a good thing to force people to do something against
>their will?
Because it maintains freedom.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:14 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:00:31 -0500;
>"Austin Ziegler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> I've even heard some folks argue that 'syndicates' or groups of users
>> could get together and hire the developer(s) to fix the problem(s).
>> Great, if you can find enough other users to work with it -- where you
>> already KNOW your supplier and have something of a "known" user base.
>>
>Certainly SLEAZY GNU-support organizations even have a strategy of hiring
>away internal people to force a profitable external support of a GPLed or free
>product. (I have existance proof of that behavior, but will NOT publically mention
>the name of such a prominent organization.)
Why the fuck not? I think *everybody* would like to hear about it,
whether they support GPL or not.
>By such predatory practices, there is a little bit of a support monopoly, and HUGE
>support fees (even relative to the 'evil empire'.)
A support monopoly on open source code. Imagine.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:16 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Ian Davey wrote:
>> JD:
>>> Thank You for being honest when you were: The GPL has restrictions
>>> by default on redistribution. Therefore, it isn't free. If you admit
>>> that the GPL isn't free, then you are honest. If you claim that it
>>> is free, then you are obviously not honest. (It is really clear,
>>> especially understanding that the GPL doesn't allow redistribution
>>> UNLESS you follow certain procedures.)
>> So a newspaper isn't free speech because it has restrictions on how
>> it can be reproduced?
>
>You're the one who just added 'free speech.' Free speech is the ACT of
>writing something. Free speech doesn't refer to reproduction of the
>created speech.
Likewise, free software refers to the ACT of *using software*. Not the
act of publishing software. Restrictions against redistributing
software cannot prevent that software from being free any more than
copyright can prevent speech from being free. It can, however, and
does, prevent books from being free (well, that, and the fact you have
to print them).
>> I can't tear a few stories out of a newspaper and use them to create
>> my own newspaper. But according to you, restrictions on how something
>> can be reused makes it no longer free. So are newspapers, books and
>> magazines suddenly not examples of free speech?
>
>The claim that the GPL is about free speech is bogus -- the reality is
>that it's a certain set of restrictions on reproduction and derivation
>rights that are granted to those who accept those restrictions.
Precisely what we mean when we say the GPL is about free speech. The
reality is that free speech requires a certain set of restrictions on
reproduction and derivation rights that are granted to those who accept
those restrictions. Just as if there were no such thing as laws, free
speech would still exist but only in theory, without GPL, open software
would only be "free" in theory.
>Let me restate that: "software" free speech is centred around the act
>of writing software. The GPL neither helps nor hinders free speech; it
>places restrictions on those who would reuse the originally written
>software -- restrictions that may be good, but neither help nor reduce
>the 'freeness' of the software. The REAL threats to free speech are
>things like the DMCA.
You are incorrect that the restrictions placed by the GPL "neither help
nor reduce the 'freeness' of the software". We aren't talking about
"software free speech", we are talking about "free software", which is
related, but only conceptually.
>(There are potentially 'free speech' threats in EULAs, but those are
>more like the licence restrictions that Oracle has: no publication of
>Oracle performance numbers. These, however, have nothing to do with
>software 'free speech', but language discussions about software.
>There's a significant difference.)
Why? It seems this, also, is one of the reasons it is both correct and
appropriate to regard GPL as "free software" *and* to compare it to
"free speech". It is the EULA's various threats that the GPL is meant
to combat.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:17 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001
>On 15 Mar 2001, Sam Holden wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:10:03 -0500,
>> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On 14 Mar 2001, Sam Holden wrote:
>>>> Les Mikesell:
>>>>> "Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>> Of course the original authors have the right to prevent others from
>>>>> being able to use the code in many ways that would be useful
>>>>> to others, as the GPL restrictions do. I don't think anyone questions
>>>>> that right. The question is, why does anyone else consider this to be
>>>>> a good thing and how can they mention it in the same sentence with
>>>>> freedom or sharing?
>>>> Because they look at it from the users point of view, not the
>>>> developers point of view. I'm not going to argue the case again -
>>>> there have been enough posts and www.gnu.org has enough explanation
>>>> of the rationale behind the GPL.
>>> It's a weak argument, though. Users[1] want software that works. They
>>> don't want to muck around with the internals of software. They MIGHT
>>> benefit from the source availability by being able to hire someone to
>>> do the work for them, but that assumes that (1) they know someone to
>>> hire, (2) they know how to specify the fixes required, and (3) they can
>>> afford such hire in the first place. If not, they're entirely dependent
>>> upon the goodwill of the developers out there.
>> That's your view.
>
>Which part are you disagreeing with? The whole thing? That's silly on
>its face. First, users -- and by this I mean non-technogeeks and
>technogeeks together -- want software that works. This isn't a view,
>this is a fact.
No, its an aphorism, and worse. The issue is whether its relevant, not
whether it is true.
>Second, of those same users, only a FEW of the technogeeks are going to
>want to bother with the source code for any given program directly.
>Again, this isn't a view, this is a fact. When you look at the
>proportion of geek-users to real-world users, the numbers are
>vanishingly small for those who want to touch the code. When you look
>at certain sets of programs, you find that the numbers are (sadly) even
>smaller. Once again, this isn't a view, it's a fact.
>
>Third, my analysis of one's options if one DOES have the source code
>available is also a fact. The options are PRECISELY as I've stated:
>either depend on the goodwill of developers (the developers of the
>package or developers you know) or hire someone. Most users aren't
>going to know a fscking thing about hiring a software developer to fix
>their software problems -- again, this is a fact.
>
>I'm curious how you translate these three FACTUAL items into a 'view'
>-- as if you could dismiss this reality. Maybe you think you can.
>
>I'm a software designer, and I have NO interest in seeing or mucking
>around with the source code to a Quicken-like software program. I want
>it to work. I want it to work with my bank's software, and I want it to
>work with my investment goals, too. I know what I'm paid, and it's far
>easier for me to upgrade to the next version (assuming I have a
>problem) than it is to consider mucking around the internals of
>software. (I could spend about 4 hours looking at the source code
>before I've exceeded the value proposition such activity offers me.
>Having fixed bugs before, I don't have the days that bugs often take to
>find -- especially in an unfamiliar codebase.) Again, this is a fact --
>not a view.
Maybe your error is in confusing "depending on the goodwill of
developers" for "free competition amongst developers", which is what the
GPL provides to those who have the source code. This is a fact, not a
view.
>> Because of it you won't agree with the GPL, since it is
>> based on an opposing view. The GPL is based on the idea that non-free
>> software is bad.
>
>This is an irrelevancy. Would you care to contribute to the discussion
>instead of saying something worthless?
Ditto.
>> This is the difference between the 'free software' (a FSF
>> term which they define explecitely so please don't argue about the word
>> free yet again) movement and the 'open source' (another well defined term,
>> please don't argue about the differnt meaning of the word open) movement.
>
>If you say so. They are STILL lying by calling GPLed software "free".
>Period. It is RESTRICTED software. You may agree or disagree with the
>restrictions, but again -- that's irrelevant to the point I made above.
And your point above is irrelevant in arguing that there is anything
about the restrictions on GPL software which prevents it from being
"free" in the way meant by the FSF, whether you would like it to be some
different meaning of the term "free" or not.
>You said that the FSF looks from the user's point of view. I said that
>your argument there is weak. Painfully weak, in fact, because the only
>thing that any given user of a piece of software wants is that it
>fscking WORKS!
Now *there's* a painfully weak argument. No, the fact that the FSF's
consideration of software being 'free' is from the perspective of the
end user, who under commercial software is forced to accept some rather
outrageous licensing restrictions in order to gain access to software,
is a very strong argument.
>The FSF (and the OSI) *claims* a benefit to source
>availability, and while I think it's a great thing ... it's not really
>what the user wants or cares about.
Nobody would agree more than the FSF. It *results* in what the user
wants and cares about. Users don't want "software for free"; they want
software that works, and they're willing to pay for it. Unfortunately,
this makes them powerless to prevent profiteering, so the GPL was
invented.
>> Your definition of free is obviously different. Hopefully you don't have
>> a problem with people having different views.
>
>Only when they use deceptive terms to try to get their view across.
You are unreasonable in insisting that their use is deceptive, simply
because you disagree with their view.
[...]
>I didn't play word games, Mr Holden. I pointed out facts and said that the
>word games played by the FSF were worthless.
They're just "words", Mr. Ziegler. The FSF isn't playing games; they're
communicating. Your insistence they are "lying" is word games, played
by you, and worthless as rational or reasonable consideration of the
FSF's position.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:19 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:49:51 -0500;
>"Jay Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:28:26 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >No-one claims "free" is "unrestricted", and free speech isn't
>> >unrestricted either. For example, in my country I will be
>> >prosecuted if I deny or minimize the Holocaust.
>>
>> This is enough restriction that I do not consider your country as having
>> true freedom of speech. The only restrictions on speech that I consider not
>> interfering with freedom are those designed to prevent actual harm to
>> others. Restrictions on historical discussion do not qualify, for if we fail
>> to learn from the mistakes of history, we will be doomed to repeat them - if
>> we're lucky. If not, we'll have to endure something even worse.
>>
>Remember, free speech is the same as writing software.
And *use* of free speech is the same as using free software.
>You have the same
>right to write software as to make speech.
And the same limit in the ability to capitalize, if either is free.
>Alas, some software GPL advocates
>tend to bring in the straw issue that confuses software LICENSING with the
>right to execute speech.
Alas; christ I hate that.
You're the one who's confused about the relationship between free speech
and free software; no GPL advocate has ever mentioned this straw man
that you construct that they are precisely the same thing.
>The GPL advocates seem to have a severe logic consistancy problem, and perhaps
>shows why they are so confused about the term 'free.'
You're so bogus, its not even funny.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:20 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:57:40 -0500;
>"Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <3aafdd1b$0$48744$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) writes:
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > Sam Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>True enough. But if the authors/owners of the original code wanted future
>> >>changes to the code to also be freely available, why shouldn't they?
>> >
>> > No reason they shouldn't, but a big reason they shouldn't claim that their
>> > code is "free" in the sense of "unrestricted", ala "free speech".
>>
>> No-one claims "free" is "unrestricted", and free speech isn't
>> unrestricted either. For example, in my country I will be
>> prosecuted if I deny or minimize the Holocaust.
>>
>> Claiming that the only valid use of "free" is when it
>> means "unrestricted" shows poor knowledge of English ;-)
>>
>Claiming that because something might be 'good' makes it 'free' shows
>defective critical thinking.
Not that anyone but you has claimed that, in fact it is a perfectly
reasonable position, underpinning much of modern philosophical thought.
The inverse is also true; that which is 'free' is 'good'.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:22 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Mar 2001 05:54:49
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 05:44:02
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >
>> >> >But that isn't even the principle. Copyleft has "I won't share (this)
>> >> >with you if you won't share (everthing of yours that uses it) with
>> >> >the world".
>> >> >
>> >> >You don't see anything wrong with that? I do on many counts. First, in
>> >> >typical GNU-speak, it isn't sharing at all; it's trading of valuable
>> >> >intellectual property rights (as is done by the "evil" corprorations).
>> >>
>> >> The GPL is anti-competitive, I agree. But it is sharing, *real*
>> >> sharing.
>> >
>> >Real sharing with restrictions...
>>
>> Yea; you have to share. Some restriction.
>
>No, no one is ever forced to share. The restrictions prevent
>sharing under all circumstances except those specifically
>described.
OK, so, how did what you say contradict what I said? Since the only
restriction is you have to share, both statements can be true, making
yours meaningless.
>> >> Not "sharing for a fee".
>> >
>> >Instead of a fee, it demands political concessions. You are restricted
>> >from sharing unless you allow them to control your behaviour.
>>
>> No, unless you're willing to share yourself. You obviously aren't
>> willing to share.
>
>Don't be silly. I want to share without restrictions on combinations.
Combinations of what? Where you share, and where you don't share?
Sorry; the rule is you have to share. I can understand your describing
how it causes you grief, that there are things which you are not at
liberty to share. But then I can't seem to feel any regret at denying
such combinations from benefiting on those who share, without being
willing to share themselves.
>I once tried to combine three components that I had found as
>free source into something more useful back in the MSDOS
>days when everything had to be linked into one program to
>work together. One was GNUtar, which took a lot of work
>to fix it's 32-bit assumptions and non-prototyped function
>calls back in those days. Another was an aspi driver that
>would talk to scsi tape drives, and the other was the
>wattcp code for dos. I had seen the aspi and tcp code
>separately built into tar but the original versions were very
>buggy, so I built them into one reliable program that would
>run under DOS and do backups in standard tar format either
>to a connected tape drive or over the network via rsh to a
>unix host. But, even though all the parts were freely available
>separately and I did not want to add restrictions to my work,
>distributing the result would be a violation of the GPL.
Well, obviously the author of GNUtar didn't want you doing that with his
code. It can be "free software" and still belong to the author; maybe
that's the issue you're having trouble with. Regardless, the practical
loss to the world of your combination is regrettable, but I'm pretty
sure that GNUtar isn't the only implementation of tar available, so
perhaps you're just confusing what's good for you with what's good for
your potential users.
>> I can understand that; it takes a lot of confidence
>> to be so sure in your ability to actually provide something worth buying
>> without any "leverage". In an ideal world, as I've said before, I'd
>> agree with you that authors should be able to directly profit on the
>> ownership of their work, so they don't have to try to "add value" to
>> their own product just to make a profit. But the problem is, we don't
>> live an ideal world, and despite your claims to the contrary, consumers
>> are far more hampered by the constant profiteering then they would be by
>> an inhibition of development caused by the GPL.
>
>I don't think you understand anything of the sort.
Hmmmm. I'm at a loss for how to take that, other than the obvious
implication that you disagree with my opinion.
>> >>The only people who have a problem
>> >> with the GPL are people who don't want to share.
>> >
>> >Or people who thing others should make their own choices.
>>
>> When it has been proven quite clearly that those choices cause a great
>> deal of problems for everyone, yea.
>
>Why would anyone think that giving away code, already freely
>available but now working correctly would cause problems?
The suspicion raised in one's mind by the phrase "now working
correctly", given any experience at all with Microsoft.
[...]
>> >Will you trade away your ability to make your own decisions for
>> >a bit of code?
>>
>> Certainly not; that's why I support the GPL so strongly.
>
>Then you don't understand it yet.
To the contrary; I understand why you find it unacceptable, and I find
that acceptable.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:23 GMT
Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 15 Mar 2001 20:58:11 GMT;
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:14 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Nor can you change the fact that Microsoft Windows is not, and never
>>will be, and supposedly "earns" a large portion of its BILLIONS OF
>>DOLLARS in capital extracted from helpless victims on code which it cut
>>and paste from BSD.
>
>Why do you care?...or are you simply jealous of their success?
Because I pay them money. Duh.
>What difference does it make to you that M$ has made billions of dollars?
I would like to give them less more of it. Is that somehow difficult to
grasp, that I would expect vendors to provide service, rather than rip
people off, force shoddy goods on them, and put the money in the bank?
>I'm certainly no fan of the company, but I do not begrudge them having made
>money.
Nor would I, if they'd ever made any money, as in earned it. They're a
criminal organization, who have monopolized. Only a moron would be a
fan of the company.
>Further, I'm happy they used the BSD networking code - for the
>alternative is *not* that they would not have made as much money, or that
>they would not have sold their software, but that they would have sold *just
>as much* software, but with a broken IP implementation that the rest of the
>world would have to live with. Therefore, I believe the BSD license has
>actually saved the world a lot of heartache.
Therefore, you're a moron. Here I am, having a relatively calm
discussion with Les, pointing out how he couldn't *possibly know*, and
frankly I don't think he can imagine, what the alternative is, and here
you come out of the woodwork to put a bow on it. Just how clueless are
you, man?
>>Thanks for all your freaking help, man. No wonder the RMS wrote the
>>GPL.
>
>RMS committed the GPV well before M$ became the behemoth it is today.
"Committed the GPV". Christ; why not just put up a banner in your sig
that says "ignore what this putz says; he wouldn't know an argument if
you handed to him."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:24 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:54:56 -0500;
>"Jay Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:14 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Nor can you change the fact that Microsoft Windows is not, and never
>> >will be, and supposedly "earns" a large portion of its BILLIONS OF
>> >DOLLARS in capital extracted from helpless victims on code which it cut
>> >and paste from BSD.
>>
>> Why do you care?...or are you simply jealous of their success?
>>
>> What difference does it make to you that M$ has made billions of dollars?
>>
>You have probably noticed that alot of GPL advocacy is based upon hatred. [...]
You've probably noticed that these guys aren't just trolls, they're sock
puppets.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:25 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 22:26:14 -0500;
>
>"David Masterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>>>> "JD" == JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "Jay Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:14 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> Nor can you change the fact that Microsoft Windows is not, and
>> >>> never will be, and supposedly "earns" a large portion of its
>> >>> BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in capital extracted from helpless victims on
>> >>> code which it cut and paste from BSD.
>>
>> >> Why do you care?...or are you simply jealous of their success?
>>
>> >> What difference does it make to you that M$ has made billions of dollars?
>>
>> > You have probably noticed that alot of GPL advocacy is based upon
>> > hatred. This is only morally self-destructive.
>>
>> Hmmm. After all this, what I still don't understand is why either of
>> you care. If someone (like RMS) suddenly popped up and said, "okay,
>> we agree with you -- software licensed under the GPL is not free, but
>> we're not changing anything (other than terminology)", then what would
>> you do?
>>
>Please refer to other discussions where people have agreed with me, and
>they have gotten a THANK YOU :-). (For face saving, they might have been
>somewhat 'careful', but my point was gotten across.)
>
>With a clarification and retraction of the lies in all public documents, RMS would
>get an honest THANK YOU from me. The biggest thank you for him would be
>his conscience (if he has such an internal mechanism.)
He didn't ask what's in it for RMS, man; he asked what's in it for YOU.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
