Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!quiroz
From: quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: FSF Hypocrisy
Summary: Let's be polite, but not foolish
Message-ID: <1989May30.233524.17100@cs.rochester.edu>
Date: 31 May 89 03:35:23 GMT
References: <2129@internal.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz)
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY 14627
Lines: 45
Followup-To:
Sender:
Expires:

I think the guys who ported GCC to A/UX should be allowed (indeed,
who will forbid them with good authority?) to post about the
availability of their porting.  Especially if their porting efforts
are made free.  Let's keep the discussion here (or around here, in
the gnu hierarchy anyway), because it is critical to the gnu effort.

Having disclaimed that I sustain their right to participate in this
groups, I take immediate advantage to attack this naive view (and
hope we can discuss it here, where I think it belongs):

In <2129@internal.Apple.COM>, dwb@sticks.aux.apple.com (David W. Berry) wrote:
| ... My original posting was very intentionally nonpolitical, because
| my goals in porting and providing support for various GNU products
| is that I wish to use them for my own personal development, and was hoping
| to avoid all other issues. ...

Two things.  You didn't keep it to yourself, and your position in
Apple makes it absolutely unnecessary for the readers of your
message to be concerned with your condition as an individual
developer.  You are justly perceived as an A/UX Engineer, and this
appearance makes the alert reader analyze your messages from quite a
different perspective, as below.

Second, it is more precise to say that you hoped your posting would
be seen as nonpolitical.  Regrettably, your *actions* have a clear
political value, whether you want it or not.  For instance, what
effect will a better compiler have on A/UX?  I see it as an effort
to make A/UX more viable, independently of the nice side effect of
making your (and many others') personal development more pleasant.
Ergo, GCC could make more profits for Apple, profits which can be
expected to be turned (given Apple's current position) against some
basic rights.  Given the choice of keeping the privilege to pay for
A/UX and lose the free FSF software, or let A/UX die of neglect and
keep FSF around, I will take the second any day.  I just hope (for
the sake of the many good people working at Apple) that there is no
need to choose.  Apple is not making that hope any easier, by the
way, but this could change quite easily.

I won't buy a Mac until I know it is safe to do so...

-- 
                                      Cesar Augusto Quiroz Gonzalez
                                      Department of Computer Science
                                      University of Rochester
                                      Rochester,  NY 14627