Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: info-gcc is not a common carrier
Message-ID: <8905310246.AA00550@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 31 May 89 02:46:22 GMT
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 42

The GNU mailing lists are not an open forum for all purposes.  We set
them up to promote free software and that is all they should be used
for.  Any other advertisements of proprietary software, or activities
in support of monopolies on software, is also misuse of the list.  We
certainly would take steps to prevent persistent, deliberate misuse.  

Whether we decide to permit hostile commercial activities to use our
mailing lists has nothing to do with freedom of speech.  Freedom of
speech means the freedom to address the public with the assistance of
such people as wish to help.  Apple can do this no matter what I say
or do.  They have the money to place ads in dozens of magazines every
week.  

However, Apple's freedom of speech does not mean we are obligated to
republish whatever Apple wants to say.  FSF is not obligated to lend
its mailing lists to hostile purposes.  Likewise, Apple isn't
obligated by our freedom of speech to publish our criticism of Apple
in the publications they give their customers (and they surely would
not).  

I am not considering adopting policies like those of Apple.  I don't
think we should block messages which merely criticize us, like Berry's
latest message.  I am considering blocking messages which actually try
to block our work, such as his previous message.

I haven't decided yet what to do.  My first attempt to fight back was
by reminding all of you of the harm that Apple was trying to do,
hoping that this would make up for whatever Apple gained by misusing
the list.  But if people did show Berry their hostility, they didn't
tell the list, and it didn't discourage him.  So I must now look for
a different way to fight back.  

The decision may be affected by what you people think.  However, if
you wish to argue against monitoring, you should use arguments other
than "Apple's freedom of speech", since (as explained above) I think
that is not valid.  

However, if you do disapprove of us for considering "censorship", I do
wish to hear from you.  Even though I think you are mistaken, I still
want to know how many of you there are.  Likewise, if you disapprove
more of Apple than you did two weeks ago, then I wish to hear from
you.