(none)
r...@ai.mit.edu
My bottom line is that GNU software *is* *proprietary* too!! It cannot
be used freely by others.
I will address this below.
It is effectively share-ware -- to use it,
we have to support your political philosophy.
This sentence depends for its impact on two meanings of the word
"support".
If "support" means agree with--which is usually what it means in the
context of "supporting a philosophy"--this statement would be a sharp
criticism, except that it is false. I clearly have no power to compel
GNU users to think one thing or another, and the general public
license doesn't say anything about requirements for users' opinions.
If "support" means behave in certain ways--such as, not develop any
proprietary software containing the GNU software--then the statement
is true, but not particularly shocking.
Calling the software
"free" under these circumstances is an interesting use of doublespeak.
This is no doublespeak, just as it is not doublespeak to say that
Americans are free when they are not allowed the freedom to sell
themselves into slavery. That prohibition may seem a galling
restriction to those who would like to buy slaves.
I am tempted to say that the true doublespeak is when people call
public domain software and X windows "free"--when thousands of users
are receiving copies under standard proprietary licenses: they can't
share it or change it.
However, that would be exaggeration. Neither of these is doublespeak.
The fact is, we can either have inalienable rights or we can have the
right to sell away our rights. Both of these are freedom of a sort.
I think that the inalienable right is more important for sharing and
changing software. You have the right to disapprove of my choice; but
that is no excuse for insulting me persistently with terms like
"doublespeak". My definition of "free software" is not the only
reasonable definition. But it is a reasonable definition. And that
is the best term I know for the meaning.
What I
produce will not be marketable. We don't do company proprietary
research here -- this is a university!
I didn't say that you did. It is the companies whose support you want
which do this. They want compilers for which they have the "freedom"
to give the users no freedom; and you want to use such a compiler, not
because you yourself would like to take away anyone else's freedom,
but because these companies offer you research support if you get them
such a compiler.
I won't say that you are malicious in this. All else being equal, I
would like you to have support for your research. But I am not
willing to capitulate to these companies so that you could have
support for your research. I don't believe their victory is
inevitable.
r...@ai.mit.edu
>Whether it be Tiananmen Square or Panama City or Pretoria...
>etc.
Shheesh...get a grip on reality here. In no way is the issue of
free software nearly as big a deal this nut makes out. People are
DYING in Tiananmen Square, you know.
The fight for the freedom to program has not escalated to the level of
killing. Apple is not trying to shoot programmers who write
compatible software, and we are not trying to shoot the employees of
Apple.
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.
The difference between this and China is a matter of degree. The
spirit is the same.
Anton Rang
The fight for the freedom to program has not escalated to the level of
killing. Apple is not trying to shoot programmers who write
compatible software, and we are not trying to shoot the employees of
Apple.
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.
The difference between this and China is a matter of degree. The
spirit is the same.
Hmm. I used to think FSF people were sane....
+---------------------------+------------------------+
| Anton Rang (grad student) | "VMS Forever!" |
| Michigan State University | ra...@cpswh.cps.msu.edu |
+---------------------------+------------------------+
Doug Schmidt
freedom by FSF proponents to the love of political and economic
freedom expressed by student protestors in China.
Regrettably, my posting occurred just shortly before the tragic and
intolerable massacre of Beijing citizens on Saturday. I am as shocked
and indignant at this wanton display of brutality and repression as
everyone else.
Clearly, the loss of thousands of innocent lives eclipses our current
struggle against ``look and feel'' litigation, although striving for
all types of freedom remains paramount. Had I been aware of the
impending slaughter in Tinanmen Square I would not have chosen that
particular metaphor.
I am deeply sorry for the unfortunate timing of my original posting.
Like all freedom loving citizens throughout the world, I pray for a
just and speedy end to the violence in China.
Doug
--
Any man's death diminishes me, | sch...@ics.uci.edu (ARPA)
Because I am involved in Mankind; | office: (714) 856-4043
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee -- John Donne
Mark VandeWettering
>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
geac!ists!stp...@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu
I start a new job in two weeks and won't have access to this machine.
Thank you.
Roger Critchlow
In article <33...@cps3xx.UUCP>
ra...@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) writes
>In article <890606191...@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> r...@AI.MIT.EDU writes:
>
> The fight for the freedom to program has not escalated to the level of
> killing. Apple is not trying to shoot programmers who write
> compatible software, and we are not trying to shoot the employees of
> Apple.
> [ and more, some quoted below ]
>Hmm. I used to think FSF people were sane....
In article <48...@uoregon.uoregon.edu>
ma...@tillamook.uucp (Mark VandeWettering) writes:
>In article <890606191...@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> r...@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.
A True Story
A friend of mine is one of four principles (two programmers and
two businessmen) in a small company which sells an expensive
commodities trading program for PC's. Over a year ago they
discovered an equally small ring of pirates who were reselling
their program. They collected evidence of the piracy, went before
a Federal judge in Chicago in closed session, and obtained the
necessary papers to seize any evidence which might bolster their
claim and establish the degree of damages which they due. The
actual court order, which I read when the friend stopped over
for a night, gave him the right to examine any forms of information
storage which might be found during the raid. They then descended
upon the pirates with papers, US Marshalls, and private detectives.
At least one of the detectives planned to carry a gun. I can't
say whether US Marshalls carry guns as a matter of routine, but
I'm sure that they aren't required to be unarmed. There was a
smell of danger in the air, as they say in bad novels.
The outcome was so anticlimactic that I'm uncertain how it ended.
The raids, simultaneous in four states, went off without a hitch.
The pirates offered no resistance. Evidence was collected, but the
piracy was not as serious as imagined. Perhaps the culprits simply
repented their evil ways, promised to walk the straight and narrow
in the future, and that was the end of it.
Inference
If Apple wins its look and feel suit, it will have the legal standing
to protect its 'property' rights in the same manner. If it protects
the monopoly which it is working so hard to establish, then you, too,
could be visited by real software police carrying real guns in your
home or office.
-- r...@elf115.uu.net --
r...@ai.mit.edu
>Ok, now I have a question. What would be the attitude toward a developer
>who distributes .o files containing proprietary code, source to the GNU
>libraries in question, and leaves the end user to compile and link them
>together on his own?
This is the one certified way of beating the copyleft, which RMS does not
like to advertize.
I've dealt with this in another message. Here I would just like to remind
people not to believe what is said on this subject by the various hostile
people posting here.
...It even has the feature that the copyleft prevents the
end user from redistributing the resulting binary because he does not have
part of the source.
This person has got so carried away with his rhetoric that he forgot
his own premises. Remember we are supposing someone linked a
*proprietary* object file with GNU code. Distributing the resulting
executable would be forbidden by the person who sold that object file.
So it doesn't matter much whether the copyleft forbids this or not.
r...@ai.mit.edu
I hope these ``computer scientists'' realize that, without
intellectual property rights like copyright, the ``free'' software of
which their leader, Richard M. Stallman, is so fond would be
impossible.
Gee, I didn't know I was their leader. Whether they share my goals,
I can't be sure, but they don't share my approach to the problem.
The Free Software Foundation takes the peculiar view that copyright
for code is good, but copyright for graphical images is bad.
This is a misstatement of our position.
I do not wish to be drawn into an argument on this subject with
people who are so cavalier, so I will say no more about it.
Tim Priddy ~
I really like *your* software (that of FSF). A lot of things
have been said in gnu.gcc about your intent, the intent of FSF and
"Copyleft". It has left me wondering:
Is it your intent that software I compile with gcc and it's
straight-off-the-net libraries, not be able to be sold? Similarly
could that software at least be kept private?
It has always been my understanding that Copyleft's intent
(and legal meaning) was to perpetuate the free distribution the
specific gnu software (emacs, gcc, bison, etc). Is this your under-
standing as well?
I will now proceed to be so bold as to do what I've just
complained of and put words in your mouth.
I believe that your intent is to write good software, freely
available to everybody (even if they work for Apple), with the
assurance that your work never be hoarded by anyone (not even
yourself).
If this is not correct would you please state your intent and
understanding of copyleft in similarly plain language?
Tim Priddy (Oakland Coliseum, Sec: 123, row: 3, seat: 13)
internet: tpr...@homrun.intel.com
uucp: ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!tpriddy