cooperation
Jamie Zawinski
A few points:
- Generally I wouldn't forward private mail, but I interpret this as a
statement of FSF policy.
- They didn't even bother to tell me they were "deciding not to post" my
messages until I explicitly asked why they hadn't shown up.
- This is not the first time this has happened, by a long shot.
- Recall that the FSF 19.24 anouncements were posted on the Lucid groups.
So draw your own conclusions. Are we an impediment to the cause of free
software? Or is he just afraid of the competition?
-- Jamie
------- start of digest (2 messages) (RFC 934 encapsulation) -------
From: Jamie Zawinski <j...@lucid.com>
To: Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: lemacs 19.10
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 20:22:30 -0700
I sent the 19.10 release anouncement to info-gnu-emacs on friday morning,
and it hasn't shown up on gnu.emacs.announce yet; is that intentional?
Just curious...
-- Jamie
------------------------------
From: Richard Stallman <r...@traveller.cz>
To: jwz
Subject: lemacs 19.10
Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 11:15:39 +0200
Reply-To: r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
We decided not to post your announcements because they seem to say
unfair negative things about Emacs 19 and because they advertise
non-free Lucid products.
------- end -------
Bob Weiner
> To: Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
> Subject: lemacs 19.10
> Date: Sat, 28 May 94 20:22:30 -0700
>
> I sent the 19.10 release anouncement to info-gnu-emacs on friday morning,
> and it hasn't shown up on gnu.emacs.announce yet; is that intentional?
> Just curious...
>
> From: Richard Stallman <r...@traveller.cz>
> To: jwz
> Subject: lemacs 19.10
> Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 11:15:39 +0200
> Reply-To: r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
>
> We decided not to post your announcements because they seem to say
> unfair negative things about Emacs 19 and because they advertise
> non-free Lucid products.
>
> ------- end -------
You have to give RMS credit for being a very clear communicator. He gives
you precise reasons why they did not post your announcement. You can
therefore easily test whether they are afraid of competition from Lucid Emacs
simply by removing the comparisons to GNU Emacs and the admittedly
minor mention of Energize. If they then fail to post the announcement, I
would agree there is a problem.
Since he doesn't indicate any bias against promoting Lucid Emacs on GNU
lists, I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that the FSF won't post a
straightforward announcement about the new release.
Bob
Jamie Zawinski
>
> You have to give RMS credit for being a very clear communicator. He gives
> you precise reasons why they did not post your announcement. You can
> therefore easily test whether they are afraid of competition from Lucid
> Emacs simply by removing the comparisons to GNU Emacs and the admittedly
> minor mention of Energize. If they then fail to post the announcement, I
> would agree there is a problem.
I have no desire to play these mindgames. Any of you are welcome to pursue
this further. Post what you like; feel free to use my text as a basis.
He has allowed the Energize-related text to be posted there in the past.
In the comparison between Lucid Emacs and FSF Emacs, the only text which
is not an objectively true fact is: "The programatic interface to the menubar
is simpler and more powerful." (I have yet to encounter anyone but RMS who
doesn't agree with this, but I will concede that it is a value judgement.)
All the other statements are nonjudgemental.
-- Jamie
Rick Busdiecker
So draw your own conclusions. Are we an impediment to the cause of free
software? Or is he just afraid of the competition?
I think it's a combination of afraid-of-the-competition and
he's-just-a-dick. Is it really true that fsf uses Xt now?!?!?
Rick (not short for Richard in my case)