Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!pebbles!ned From: ned@pebbles.cad.mcc.com (CME Ned Nowotny) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Changes to Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies Message-ID: <1960@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM> Date: 27 Jul 89 22:09:43 GMT References: <12348@altos86.Altos.COM> <4439@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Sender: news@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM Reply-To: ned%cad@MCC.COM (CME Ned Nowotny) Organization: MCC CAD Program, Austin, TX Lines: 39 In article geoff@tom.harvard.edu (Geoff Clemm) writes: >With this in mind, the only purpose for non-FSF political postings (other >than simple rudeness) would be an attempt to change FSF's politics and >therefore indirectly affect the technical contents. It has been demonstrated >over and over ad nauseam that the FSF view is internally consistent, leaving >non-FSF political posting as either "I disagree with your axioms" or the >equivalent of a rude noise (with an unfortunate preponderance of the latter). > However, internal consistentcy does not imply correctness. It is precisely because some of us who are otherwise supportive of the FSF disagree with some aspects of the FSF policy that we welcome discussion of the FSF license and the manifesto. Perhaps FSF will be persuaded, perhaps we will, but informed discussion is beneficial to both sides. In any case, I welcome the creation of gnu.misc.discuss. Finally, there is now an appropriate forum which is at least somewhat sure of being regularly followed by members of the FSF board. For what it is worth: 1) Comments that direct potential users of FSF software to discuss the consequences of the general license with an attorney imply somewhat less freedom than I would hope for from the FSF. 2) Calling a binding copyright a "copyleft" is little more that newspeak and once again calls into question the FSF use of other common English words (e.g. "free"). A license that clearly requires users of FSF software to provide FSF source code utilized within an otherwise proprietary product on demand for reasonable costs of distribution would be acceptable to almost everyone. It is the "guilt by association" implied in the current license that gives me reservations. While I do not expect a change of heart by RMS, Len, et al., I do believe it is a topic worth discussing. Ned Nowotny, MCC CAD Program, Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720 Ph: (512) 338-3715 ARPA: ned@mcc.com UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!ned ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We have ways to make you scream." - Intel advertisement in the June 1989 DDJ.