Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!uoregon!tillamook!markv
From: markv@tillamook.uucp (Mark VandeWettering)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: (none)
Message-ID: <4850@uoregon.uoregon.edu>
Date: 7 Jun 89 00:15:16 GMT
References: <8906061911.AA00320@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: news@uoregon.uoregon.edu
Reply-To: markv@tillamook.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: University of Oregon CIS Dept.
Lines: 71

In article <8906061911.AA00320@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes:

>However, they are trying to arrange to send men with guns (police) to
>stop us from writing compatible software.  They probably will try to
>avoid shooting, but they may well imprison some of us for years if we
>refuse to stop.

	I second the notion expressed earlier: get a grip.

>The difference between this and China is a matter of degree.  The
>spirit is the same.

	No, not at all.  It really p*sses me off when people utilize
	tragic occurrences like the civil war in China to make points
	about their own petty concerns.

	The question is not a matter of degree.  The question is a
	matter of people living or dying.  Don't dare cheapen their
	sacrifices by relating them to the "noble" goals of the "Free"
	Software Foundation.

	Now that that BS is off my chest...

	I am a programmer by profession, and get a kick out of people
	using my software.  The software that I release for public
	consumption has been public domain, and will continue to be
	public domain.   This is because:

		a)	I have neither the time nor the energy to 
			keep track of modifications, and update the
			program to run on "k" different processors.
		b)	I write programs to exercise my own skills, and
			hone them, not really to make money (although it
			has proven to be a lucrative skill).  Therefore,
			they have no value to me except as learning
			tools.
		c) 	Releasing software may help other people solve
			their software problems.
	
	People have asked me to re-read the GNU Manifesto after the last
	posting I made, in order to better understand the goals of the 
	GNU Project.  I have done so.  Rather than make some off the
	cuff insulting remark, I shall endeavor to express my disdain
	more clearly.

	Stallman's assumption is that restricting access to software is
	tantamount to controlling information, and is morally incorrect.
	In fact software, since it requires no resources, should be free
	to distribute.

	Sorry, it just don't work that way.  I don't know who pays RMS's
	bills, but I have to pay my own.  One of my skills happens to be
	programming, therefore I can exploit it to obtain food and
	housing.  Creation of software takes MY resources, and I need
	them to live.  Therefore, I feel no problems whatsoever in
	accepting a living wage.  Mr. Stallman, you do exactly the same
	thing.

	I really would like to have a job like Mr. Stallman.  I like to
	hack, I like to program, fix bugs, design, talk, eat and sleep
	software.  However, I choose not to use my skills to perpetuate
	a political view which is of marginal utility to many users.

	As I said before, as computer programmers, the GNU project has
	turned out some impressive works.  In my recent email
	conversations etc, I have become seriously disillusioned about
	the members of the FSF and their intentions as members of the
	human race.  Because of this, I am seriously reconsidering my
	continued use of GNU software.

Mark VandeWettering