Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!tale From: tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Why I do not support GNU Message-ID: <1989Oct21.065530.3599@rpi.edu> Date: 21 Oct 89 06:55:30 GMT References: <8910160520.AA01740@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> <1989Oct18.080236.23848@rpi.edu> Distribution: gnu Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Lines: 128 SJA == Sakari Jalovaara DCL == me SJA> So it *is* OK to disagree with FSF in gnu.misc.discuss after all. Wow. DCL> It has been right from day one; the FSF has not ever claimed otherwise. SJA> Actually, it hasn't and they have; not on day one, but it seems this SJA> policy has changed. Wow. SJA> Here are a couple of quotes from article <330@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> SJA> posted to news.admin and gnu.misc.discuss: [deleted] I stand by exactly what I said; you choose to go to sources outside the FSF for misinformation. The following is quoted from the the text of the newgroup message which created gnu.misc.discuss. It was also posted to the group shortly after its creation. Len == Len Tower, who wrote the charter, although Bob Sutterfield was the one who touched it up before final posting. Len> This list is for serious discussion of freed software, the GNU Len> Project, the GNU Manifesto and their implications. It's THE place for Len> discussion that is not appropriate in the other GNU mailing lists and Len> gnUSENET newsgroups. Len> Len> Flaming is out of place. Tit-for-tat is not welcome. Repetition Len> should not occur. Len> Len> Good READING and writing are expected. Before posting, wait a while, Len> cool off, and think. I am trying now. I've mulled over this message for more than a day considering whether it is appropriate for the group and it's only going about 52/48 in favour. I have decided to post though because it is important that the record be set straight with regard to the facts. SJA> I have article <8905310246.AA00550@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> in gnu.gcc; SJA> written by a member of FSF, proposing the blockade. It does say RMS> I am considering blocking messages which actually try to block RMS> our work, such as his previous message. SJA> [...] I do not know whether the block was supposed to work SJA> automatically by blocking every message from the domain SJA> "apple.com" or whether the group was supposed to be monitored [...] SJA> and only "harmful" messages blocked. If you don't know, why do you present it as though you did? You state pretty directly in the document which you originally posted that the proposal was to block messages from anyone working at Apple. Even the quote you have now dragged up from Richard, supposedly as proof, does not support this. Even further misinformation. It smacks of purposeful _dis_information. SJA> I remember seeing an article saying that if a bison input file uses SJA> bison-specific features the input file falls under the GNU copyright. Bob Sutterfield has clarified the incorrectness of the assertion in another article to this group. SJA> Quite; the point is that if a programming assignment requires the use SJA> of a tool, a non-GNU tool must be provided (or, if I understand the SJA> FSF claim to the "%expect" keyword correctly, an equivalent tool must SJA> *exist* so that FSF cannot claim ownership of the code.) %expect just makes the parser generator shut up a little. Perhaps you are arguing about setting precedent, because it is far from a "must have" of YACC input. It is also not the case that a non-GNU tool _must_ be provided. SJA> Say I don't want my code to be sold [...] [This is just an aside, and not an attempt to be antagonistic but just a request for greater understanding on my part, but why wouldn't you want you code to be sold? If someone wants to pay for it, why are you upset about that?] SJA> * The modifications are so complex you can't duplicate them. SJA> In this case, the users can choose between your free but SJA> not-so-great program and the New and Improved commercial SJA> version. Without competition, they only would have one choice SJA> - the incomplete version. The more competitors there are, the SJA> better (and cheaper, etc) programs they have to make to SJA> stay in the competition. DCL> I disagree with the conclusion you draw in the middle of this DCL> paragraph. It is not necessarily at all the case that without DCL> competition they would have only one choice. There is a lot of DCL> excellent free software development which goes on which has absolutely DCL> nothing to do with competition. SJA> Certainly, there may be several different free versions. But the SJA> commercial version is *one* *more*. Nothing wrong having one more SJA> choice? Now you are changing what you said. You said, quite clearly, "they only would have one choice". The focus of your argument regarding this shifted also, ending with that question. No one ever said here that something is wrong with having one more choice. SJA> Some people would make the decision to go commercial with a public SJA> domain gcc but, because gcc is GNU copyrighted, now release it under SJA> the GNU copyright instead. Which of course _is_ the whole point of the GPL. SJA> Question: FSF probably has a list of porters of gcc. How many of SJA> those do you realistically think would have made their version SJA> commercial, were it possible? How many of those versions (different SJA> back-ends) would have been re-made and released as public domain, SJA> giving users a choice? Are so many of the porters greedy hoarders? The question confuses me. What do you mean by commercial? Not giving the source code with the modifications they have made, but distributing, for a price, only the binaries? SJA> It seems to me that some people are saying they would like to SJA> contribute work to a free operating system but, for some reason, don't SJA> contribute to GNU. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that SJA> suggest that just maybe there is something wrong with GNU? It suggests lots of possibilities, that being one of them. Doesn't it also suggest that just maybe there is something wrong with their perception of GNU? Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))