Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:1181 comp.sources.d:5544
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!mcsun!cernvax!chx400!olsen!nagler
From: nagler@olsen.UUCP (Robert Nagler)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: LPF (Was Re: Lotus decision)
Summary: RMS is not a politician.  The LPF is important.
Keywords: RMS, LPF, FSF, Computer law
Message-ID: <173@munz.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jul 90 19:49:38 GMT
References: <22730@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>
Reply-To: nagler@olsen.UUCP (Robert Nagler)
Organization: Olsen & Associates, Zurich, Switzerland
Lines: 14

In article <22730@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>...if not impossible, for Richard Stallman to keep his own more radical
>views out of whatever LPF does.  How many times have you heard of
>political groups doing things outside of their charter ...

While I don't necessarily agree with all the views of RMS (BTW, who does?),
he comes across as being honest and altruistic.  For example, he doesn't 
accept money from the FSF.  The LPF is up against some big companies.  If 
we choose to bicker about the integrity of RMS, we will certainly lose
the war.  How many political groups (coalitions) have failed by missing
the forest for the trees?

RMS isn't great, but he's all we've got (unless I hear any volunteers in 
the peanut gallery 8-)