Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!DSYS.NCSL.NIST.GOV!rbj
From: rbj@DSYS.NCSL.NIST.GOV (Root Boy Jim)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: info-gcc is not a common carrier
Message-ID: <8906051942.AA08599@dsys.ncsl.nist.gov>
Date: 5 Jun 89 19:42:09 GMT
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards
Lines: 124

? From: rms@ai.mit.edu

? 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.  

Agreed. This newgroup/mailing list exists for a specific purpose. Like
all other distributions, people may only post material relevant to
the subject matter. Some groups are moderated to ensure this purpose.

However, in practice, the discussion in unmoderated groups tends to
wander off the mark a bit. When the discussion wanders too far, usually
people will start taking steps to bring the discussion back on track.

This can be thought of as A Good Thing. It is easy to delete articles
that are not of interest, and the static categorys don't always match
the dynamic shift in topics.

? 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.  

Also agreed. Corporate products should be advertised by paying for it.

? 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).  

However, like all areas, this one has started to become grey. We must
make a distinction between Apple the corporation, and employees of
Apple. If an Apple employee wants to hack GCC or any other GNUware
to run on his box, he should be free to do do. He should also be
free to post the fact that he did, announce the availability in
this newsgroup, along with info on where to get it, *as long as
he obeys the GNU distribution license*.

He should expect no help from us; we have decided not to support
it for the reasons RMS has stated. Yet, we should not seriously
hamper non-commercial efforts even tho they may be related to
a product we consider ungroovy.

Note that I don't even care whether he did it on his own time or
whether Apple paid for it. In some respects, the latter is preferable.

? 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.

This is laudable. We are not perfect, and we must take our lumps.
Constructive criticism is welcome. But it must not cross the line
where it degenerates into name-calling or becomes destructive.

? 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.  

Well, maybe. Perhaps the list *should* temporarily or permanently
be moderated. You must weigh the advantages against the time and
effort required to do so.

? 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.  

Agreed. However, a key phrase in that last paragraph is `what people
think.' We are getting dangerously close to pissing off some of our
best champions. Gene Spafford has done a great service by using GCC
to compile his Purdue speedups in X. Probably shaken out a few bugs
too. 

One of his stated concerns is that he may have to give away code he
ran thru your compiler, of if he used your librarys. I am confused as
to whether this is truly a requirement. If it is, I am against it
because I am against corporations placing restrictions on code
compiled with their compiler or linked with their librarys.
Fortunately, AT&T has allowed the use of their binary library code. I
urge you to do the same, perhaps with the restriction that if library
routines are used, that the entire library and the compiler must be
provided in source form.

Other than that, I see the code as a completely separate work, with
the author free to place his own restrictions on it. That way, the
compiler, librarys, and philosophy will be propagated, and will
reach new people, who may jump on the bandwagon.

? 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.

By now, I have seen so many flames I have lost track of the original
postings and responses. I can only offer one piece of advice: don't
descend to their level. You (RMS) must be seen to be above it. Your
greatest strength is the fact that you are a wizard hacker, and the
purity of your position. You may call for boycotts, but you must
not let yourself be goaded into actions that will make you look petty.

You have set the ground rules for your cornor of the universe. Other
people have set their own, more restrictive rules. You are offering us
the chance to play a game with different and better rules. For that,
we love and admire you.

Please do not succumb to paranoia. I can see little that people can
do to actively impede our work. A commercial posting here, a flame
there, do not really matter all that much. All that is required is
a gentle reminder that certain actions are inappropriate. Don't spend
too much time defending your position, it takes away from your work.

	Root Boy Jim is what I am
	Are you what you are or what?