On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:
> software. There is only one known case where we disagree, and that is
> the Apple license.
Excuse me. That was originally said in conjunction with a few other things
that I ended up taking out, because I couldn't figure out how to word it
properly
> If anything, GNOME is part of the "GNOME movement" - any other group
> trying to take credit for it or call it their own, should reconsider
> their position.
The "G" in GNOME stands for GNU. GNOME is part of the GNU project.
Just in case you had not noticed ;-)
Miguel.
Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
> I believe more hackers would rather listen to Richard than to you, Eric.
I disagree. I think both of them are worth listening to. One of them is trying to
be practical, the other is trying to be ideological. There's nothing wrong with
either approach, and some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alejandro, fix your Reply-To header.
> I believe more hackers would rather listen to Richard than to you,
> Eric. Perhaps your audience is bigger when you count them with your
> finger, but Richard is far from seeing himself in the situation
>
In your zeal to distance your doctrinal purity from the OSI's
filthy but effective pragmatism, you are mainly succeeding in
marginalizing both the FSF and yourself. If you keep this up,
you're going to end up ranting to an audience of one, in the mirror.
I believe more ha
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>There is only one known case where we disagree, and that is the Apple license.
You really should look at APSL 1.1. I believe the provisions that you objected
toi have been fixed or removed.
--
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond
"G
Hello all;
Attached is the much-hallybooed appendix IV, creating a
fairly rudimentary framework for economics and Free
Software. I'm only one major graph away from completing
the essay (a marginal graph of programmers vs loc in
subprojects) and some minors (simple ratios) and I'll
be done.
JC.
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually there is just a small difference between the set of licenses
> that are defined as open source and the set that we define as free
> software. There is only one known case where we disagree, and that is
> the Apple license.
APSL 1.0, APSL 1.
If anything, GNOME is part of the "GNOME movement" - any other group
trying to take credit for it or call it their own, should reconsider
their position.
GNOME is the GNU desktop, a part of the GNU Project. Its development
was based directly on the idealism of the Free Software move
I am much more concerned about the fact that Open Source accepts
an increasing variety of licenses
Actually there is just a small difference between the set of licenses
that are defined as open source and the set that we define as free
software. There is only one known case where we di
The true strength of free/openware will not come from
its selling point. It will come from the freedom. Even
after every ideology has come and gone, the code is
protected and will remain.
Ironically, the ideology of the Free Software movement
is very close to the point you have ju
RMS is going to live to see a world of almost entirely ``free''
software. And he's going to get it because Linus Torvalds is better
at managing developers than he is and because *I* figured out exactly
how to sweet-talk the suits into buying the freedom. We two are the
best a
but effective pragmatism, you are mainly succeeding in marginalizing
both the FSF and yourself.
You have done a very effective job of promoting your views, and you
are entitled to do that; but the Free Software movement is alive and
well also. I frequently hear from people who tell me to
I've always been careful to describe the Open Source movement as a
different philosophical camp, not an enemy. I think it fails to
address the most important and deepest issues, but I don't argue
against what it explicitly says.
I hope that Eric will treat the Free Software movement in an equall
14 matches
Mail list logo
