Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!paperboy!meissner
From: meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <MEISSNER.91Feb1102928@curley.osf.org>
Date: 1 Feb 91 15:29:28 GMT
References: <13109@life.ai.mit.edu> <43397@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Sender: news@OSF.ORG
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Lines: 27
In-reply-to: new@ee.udel.edu's message of 1 Feb 91 05:16:14 GMT

In article <43397@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New)
writes:

| I realize that these things are legal.  I just think it's wrong.  I
| also don't know that it encourages *new* work very much.  I may be
| wrong, but I don't know of anything that FSF has published that isn't a
| clone of somebody else's work. I wouldn't at all object to seeing
| something new truely published as FSFware, but I don't think that's
| going to happen very often.  Building on history to produce new
| scientific works is one thing; directly reimplementing a program such
| that you can even use the same manual page is not it.  In what way is
| this "advancing science"?  

Of course how do you classify GNU emacs?  RMS was the original author,
of course they didn't have GNU back then.

Also, while it's not written by a FSF'er, Perl is distributed under
the copyleft, and the FSF redistributes it, and it's not a clone of a
single program (more like an irish stew of different languages).

And of course you don't use BSD or System V personally, because they
are clones of the original UNIX'es from AT&T......
--
Michael Meissner	email: meissner@osf.org		phone: 617-621-8861
Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142

Considering the flames and intolerance, shouldn't USENET be spelled ABUSENET?