Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!pcg
From: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: FSF Hypocrisy
Summary: hey, RMS and the FSF may or may not be wrong,
	but they are sure sincere and consistent
Message-ID: <982@aber-cs.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jun 89 14:21:54 GMT
Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Organization: Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth
	(Disclaimer: my statements are purely personal)
Lines: 48

In article <107886@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> wert@sun.UUCP (Robert Scott Comer) writes:

    Yes, I agree that fsf has been out of line re: apple. Free software is
    free, period. Computer scientists should be building on each other, not
    ripping each apart. David Berry did a nice piece of work on his own time.
    It should stand on its own merits. David might not even agree with his
    employers' ideas about how to protect their property.

Let me say, let me say: whatever the evils of RMS in the eyes of people that
would like to take advantage of his *free* software to further their
*restricted* research or products, there are two points that seem to be
forgotten:

	[1] The FSF do not want to *support* their sw on Apple products.
	    Consistently with their *free* sw policy, you are not
	    *forbidden* from using it on Apple computers, or supporting it
	    yourself. The FSF exercise their right not to do something
	    they don't like, while remaining consistent with their aims.

	[2] The FSF are the copyright holder of their sw. They free to
	    impose whatever conditions (note, not *restrictions*) on
	    reproduction of their copyrighted work as they see fit. These
	    conditions are exceptionally mild, and are designed to promote
	    *free* sharing of their sw, including derivatives. If you don't
	    like this, get sw from somebody else that is prepared to offer
	    different conditions.
    
    FSF's refusal to incorporate changes to enhance portability to AUX are
    despicable. Shame on you. You are no better than Apple.

Of course, one can try to persuade RMS and the FSF to change their beliefs
or that their actions are inconsistent with them, but keeping well present
that they are respectable persons with a keen intellect, have contributed
much to the state of the art and the ability for many to share it, and they
surely are not ossified, but think over and over their decisions again.

As to me I quite agree with RMS on Apple. The only objection I think can be
made is that the support boycott might not be the best solution to the
problem of how to exert some pressure or influence against Apple's actions.

Even given this, in the absence of some better idea the support boycott is
an understandable reaction of the "we don't want to have to do with products
of companies we strongly dislike" sort. It might even make other people think
of why there is such strong dislike.
-- 
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk