Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:644 alt.religion.computers:1212 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!shelby!neon!neon!gumby From: gumby@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (David Vinayak Wallace) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers Subject: No need for FSF? Message-ID: Date: 22 Dec 89 20:59:00 GMT References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> <1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil>, <62@zds-ux.UUCP> <4ZYPWMC00W0T5LNvBh@andrew.cmu.edu> Sender: USENET News System Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 22 In-Reply-To: jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 22 Dec 89 05:16:08 GMT Date: 22 Dec 89 05:16:08 GMT From: jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) If FSF and the GPL had been around when Unix was being developed, then granted, Unix source would be available and there would be free versions of a generally nifty os for as many computer types as we could find geeks to port it to. However, if this had been true, then the FSF would have no reason to exist - the GNU project would be purposeless. Remember - GNU's Not Unix - it's a replacement for Unix. Please do not be so `ethnocentic' as to presume that unix is the be all and end all of software, and hence that the FSF need be coextensional with the GNU project. Currently the FSF has only one project, GNU, but need that be true? Unix is unfortunately very popular; hence it's a natural piece of software to liberate. One could imagine a strong FSF beginning a project on, say, a distributed networking environment. They are currently rather oriented towards practical stuff, but research isn't inconsistent with their charter.