Matt Assay Tells the Truth

Post by Rjack
"I have some unfortunate news for those socialists and communists
who still believe that open source is their movement. It's not. Open
source is firmly capitalist. Always has been. Always will be."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10170649-16.html
Viva la BSD !!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, the BSD license may be the preferred open source license for
leeches. For licensing their _own_ works to others as Open Source,
capitalists tend to prefer the GPL.

And actually the short essay does no license differentiation. It is
rather talking about marketing differences.

You are even too stupid to pick articles supporting your views.

--
David Kastrup

Richard Tobin

2009-02-25 10:00:33 UTC

Post by Rjack
"I have some unfortunate news for those socialists and communists
who still believe that open source is their movement.

Who ever thought that? "Open source" was always a watering-down
of free software to make it more business-friendly.

-- Richard

--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

Rjack

2009-02-25 13:04:07 UTC

Post by Rjack
"I have some unfortunate news for those socialists and communists
who still believe that open source is their movement.

Who ever thought that? "Open source" was always a watering-down
of free software to make it more business-friendly.
-- Richard

I love revisionist history.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

Hyman Rosen

2009-02-25 14:43:05 UTC

Post by Rjack

Post by Richard Tobin
Who ever thought that? "Open source" was always a watering-down
of free software to make it more business-friendly.

I love revisionist history.

Aren't you even capable of reading the articles you yourself quote?

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10170649-16.html>
Open source, from its inception, has been avowedly
pro-business. That was, after all, the whole point
behind changing the terminology from Richard Stallman's
preferred "free software" to Eric Raymond and Co.'s
"open-source software."

JEDIDIAH

2009-02-25 15:23:17 UTC

Post by Rjack

Post by Rjack
"I have some unfortunate news for those socialists and communists
who still believe that open source is their movement.

Who ever thought that? "Open source" was always a watering-down
of free software to make it more business-friendly.
-- Richard

I love revisionist history.

You must.

Many of us REMEMBER THIS STUFF. We were around and paying
attention WHEN IT HAPPENED. So we don't need any self proclaimed
experts with no clue telling us how "history" really happened.

Open source has always been for the corporations.

--
...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
|||
/ | \

Roy Schestowitz

2009-02-25 15:40:26 UTC

____/ JEDIDIAH on Wednesday 25 February 2009 15:23 : \____

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Rjack

Post by Rjack
"I have some unfortunate news for those socialists and communists
who still believe that open source is their movement.

Who ever thought that? "Open source" was always a watering-down
of free software to make it more business-friendly.
-- Richard

I love revisionist history.

You must.
Many of us REMEMBER THIS STUFF. We were around and paying
attention WHEN IT HAPPENED. So we don't need any self proclaimed
experts with no clue telling us how "history" really happened.
Open source has always been for the corporations.

Apache is built almost only by corporations.

- --
~~ Best of wishes

In an Open world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates? -- ??
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 140 total, 1 running, 139 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

Richard Tobin

2009-02-26 17:20:42 UTC

Post by Rjack
I love revisionist history.

We've noticed.

-- Richard

--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

Rjack

2009-02-26 18:33:59 UTC

Post by Rjack
I love revisionist history.

We've noticed.
-- Richard

The X window system X10R3 was released in the spring of *1986* under
the MIT license.

The GPLv1 wasn't written until February 1989. Richard Stallman was
there at MIT during the years 1986 - 1989 during which time he
decided to hijack the MIT license.

Try telling it like it was Sir Tobin -- then it won't be labeled
as revisionist propaganda.

Hyman Rosen

2009-02-26 18:41:09 UTC

The X window system X10R3 was released in the spring of *1986* under the
MIT license.
The GPLv1 wasn't written until February 1989. Richard Stallman was there
at MIT during the years 1986 - 1989 during which time he decided to
hijack the MIT license.

Ironic that you should mention X Window, since it illustrates
why software should be under the GPL. For a few months, before
community pressure foiled the plan, the X Consortium and the
Open Group tried to make X Window proprietary.

See <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html>.

Rjack

2009-02-26 19:17:09 UTC

Post by Rjack
The X window system X10R3 was released in the spring of *1986*
under the MIT license.
The GPLv1 wasn't written until February 1989. Richard Stallman
was there at MIT during the years 1986 - 1989 during which time
he decided to hijack the MIT license.

Ironic that you should mention X Window, since it illustrates why
software should be under the GPL. For a few months, before
community pressure foiled the plan, the X Consortium and the Open
Group tried to make X Window proprietary.
See <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html>.

For a few months, before community pressure foiled the plan, the X
Consortium and the Open Group tried to make X Window proprietary.

Egad!! I thought *freedom* for software developers meant licensing
their software any way they wished. I didn't know it was the GPL or
the highway.

Your link to the self-serving rant by Richard Stallman does nothing
but confirm his monomanical compulsion to destroy the concept of
intellectual property.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

Hyman Rosen

2009-02-26 19:57:57 UTC

Post by Rjack
Egad!! I thought *freedom* for software developers meant licensing
their software any way they wished. I didn't know it was the GPL or
the highway.

This is absolutely correct. Freedom for software developers means that
they may license their software any way they wish. The FSF promotes
freedom for users, however, not software developers, and the freedom
of users is adversely affected when software developers choose non-free
licenses.

Post by Rjack
Your link to the self-serving rant by Richard Stallman does nothing
but confirm his monomanical compulsion to destroy the concept of
intellectual property.

Stallman believes that users of software should have the freedom to
run, read, modify, and share it. In the case of X Window, for a very
long time its users had those freedoms, but they could have been lost
because the organization primarily responsible for it had the legal
right to do so. Therefore, he urges that free software developers use
the GPL to prevent situations like this from occurring.

Notice that the FSF does nothing at all to prevent software developers
from doing anything they wish, as long as they do not involve themselves
with GPLed code. They operate by presenting attractive alternatives so
that developers of non-free software are disadvantaged in the marketplace
by having to duplicate functionality that is available for free to free
software developers. To the extent that this upsets you, they are succeeding.

Rjack

2009-02-26 20:33:03 UTC

Post by Rjack
Egad!! I thought *freedom* for software developers meant
licensing their software any way they wished. I didn't know it
was the GPL or the highway.

This is absolutely correct. Freedom for software developers means
that they may license their software any way they wish. The FSF
promotes freedom for users, however, not software developers, and
the freedom of users is adversely affected when software
developers choose non-free licenses.

Why don't you write the editors of these publishers:

# Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), Based on the Random House
Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
# Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v
0.9.6) Copyright 2003-2006 Dictionary.com, LLC
# Dictionary.com Word of the Day
# Dictionary.com Crossword Solver
# The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by
Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
# The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by
Houghton Mifflin Company.
# The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary Copyright ©
2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton
Mifflin Company.
# WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
# Investopedia.com. Copyright © 1999-2005 - All rights reserved.
Owned and Operated by Investopedia Inc.
# Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law,© 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
# Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
# Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
# The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2005 Denis Howe
# Jargon File 4.2.0
# Acronym Finder, © 1988-2004 Mountain Data Systems
# U.S. Gazetteer, U.S. Census Bureau

and explain to them that their definition of "freedom" is wrong.
Perhaps after they change their definition to suit Stallman's
philosophy you'll have a better chance of making all of us ardent
socialists.

Post by Rjack
Your link to the self-serving rant by Richard Stallman does
nothing but confirm his monomanical compulsion to destroy the
concept of intellectual property.

Stallman believes that users of software should have the freedom
to run, read, modify, and share it.

My God! However did society ever manage before Stallman came along?
We're so grateful he's saving us from ourselves.

Except file bogus lawsuits in attempts to intimidate folks into
believing the GPL is an enforceable legal contract.

Post by Hyman Rosen
to prevent software developers from doing anything they wish, as
long as they do not involve themselves with GPLed code. They
operate by presenting attractive alternatives so that developers
of non-free software are disadvantaged in the marketplace by
having to duplicate functionality that is available for free to
free software developers.
To the extent that this upsets you, they are succeeding.

Upset? I don't have to file bogus copyright lawsuits to concisely
express my views. That fact leaves me at peace.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

Hyman Rosen

2009-02-26 22:24:23 UTC

Post by Rjack
explain to them that their definition of "freedom" is wrong.

The FSF explains at length what they mean by free software.
It is spelled out clearly in the GPL as well. The only people
adversely affected by restrictions on what may be done with
free software are developers who wish to restrict the freedom
of their users. Those people would not be any happier if free
software were named something else. It is no different than
freedom of speech being surrounded by a web of restrictions
concerning slander, libel, obscenity, or national emergency.
Reasonable people understand. People who resort to dictionary
definitions in the belief that this makes a cogent point are
to be pitied.

Post by Rjack
Perhaps after they change their definition to suit Stallman's
philosophy you'll have a better chance of making all of us ardent
socialists.

No one is trying to make you be anything. No one is forcing you
to develop software, and if you do develop software, no one is
forcing you to adopt a particular license. The GPL creates a
community of code developed by people who share the belief that
users should have the freedom to run, read, modify, and share
software. That code may be incorporated into other software only
if that other software is under the same license. Simply choose
not to do so if that is what you wish. The GPL community will
happily ignore you, and you may happily ignore them.

Post by Rjack
My God! However did society ever manage before Stallman came along?
We're so grateful he's saving us from ourselves.

Do you really find it so peculiar and upsetting that some
people have different points of view than you do? You must
live a very insular existence.

Post by Rjack
Except file bogus lawsuits in attempts to intimidate folks into
believing the GPL is an enforceable legal contract.

And successful ones at that. Even assuming that your arguments
about the GPL not being enforceable are correct, which they are
not, the GPL clearly expresses the intent of the developers who
use it. Why are we to feel sympathy for people who disregard this
intent?

Post by Rjack
Upset? I don't have to file bogus copyright lawsuits to concisely
express my views. That fact leaves me at peace.

After each suit filed by the SFLC, the GPLed software was made properly
available by the defendants or their agents. That leaves me at peace.
Good. I'm glad we're both happy.

Rjack

2009-02-26 23:28:22 UTC

Post by Rjack
explain to them that their definition of "freedom" is wrong.

The FSF explains at length what they mean by free software. It is
spelled out clearly in the GPL as well. The only people
adversely affected by restrictions on what may be done with free
software are developers who wish to restrict the freedom of their
users. Those people would not be any happier if free software
were named something else. It is no different than freedom of
speech being surrounded by a web of restrictions concerning
slander, libel, obscenity, or national emergency. Reasonable
people understand.
People who resort to dictionary definitions in the belief that
this makes a cogent point are to be pitied.

Thanks for the empathy Hymen. I try to stick to the ordinary
meanings assigned to words. I'm sure redefining words as you wish is
very convenient -- just as the FSF attempts to redefine copyright
law to suit their socialist agenda.

You never lose do you Hymen? You just mooooooove the goalposts.

Post by Rjack
Perhaps after they change their definition to suit Stallman's
philosophy you'll have a better chance of making all of us
ardent socialists.

No one is trying to make you be anything.

I'll believe that when the SFLC stops filing bogus lawsuits.

No one is forcing you to develop software, and if you do develop
software, no one is forcing you to adopt a particular license.
The GPL creates a community of code developed by people who share
the belief that users should have the freedom to run, read,
modify, and share software. That code may be incorporated into
other software only if that other software is under the same
license. Simply choose not to do so if that is what you wish. The
GPL community will happily ignore you, and you may happily
ignore them.

Post by Rjack
My God! However did society ever manage before Stallman came
along? We're so grateful he's saving us from ourselves.

Do you really find it so peculiar and upsetting that some people
have different points of view than you do? You must live a very
insular existence.

What happened to your self-serving, pious "ad hominem" lamentation?

Post by Rjack
Except file bogus lawsuits in attempts to intimidate folks into
believing the GPL is an enforceable legal contract.

And successful ones at that. Even assuming that your arguments
about the GPL not being enforceable are correct, which they are
not,

Put your money where your mouth is and use legal argumentation and
authority instead of empty rhetoric -- for instance it would only
take one example of a federal court ruling (that's where the rubber
meets the road) that a copyright license is not a contract. *That*
would remove the wind from my sails. The FSF has had years to back
up their legal claim that a "license is not a contract" but the only
thing the software world has ever seen is self-serving bullshit.

the GPL clearly expresses the intent of the developers who use
it. Why are we to feel sympathy for people who disregard this
intent?

Good question since the GPL is clearly illegal and unenforcable.

Post by Rjack
Upset? I don't have to file bogus copyright lawsuits to
concisely express my views. That fact leaves me at peace.

After each suit filed by the SFLC, the GPLed software was made
properly available by the defendants or their agents.

Except that Verizon told the SFLC to kiss their royal purple ass.

That leaves me at peace. Good. I'm glad we're both happy.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

-- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed
by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) --

-- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) --

Hyman Rosen

2009-02-27 07:11:11 UTC

I try to stick to the ordinary meanings assigned to words.

A user who receives GPLed software is free to run it anywhere
it will run, is free to read the source code, is free to modify
the source code, and is free to share the program with others.

All off these uses of the word "free" are perfectly ordinary.

Post by Hyman Rosen
No one is trying to make you be anything.

I'll believe that when the SFLC stops filing bogus lawsuits.

Did you infringe the copyright of GPLed software?
The SFLC sues people who infringe the copyrights of GPLed software.
They make those people stop doing that, or else properly make the
source code available. Do you feel personally affected by any suit
filed anywhere? Perhaps you suffer from paranoia.

What happened to your self-serving, pious "ad hominem" lamentation?

I go by the evidence visible in your posts.

Put your money where your mouth is and use legal argumentation and
authority instead of empty rhetoric

I'm not a lawyer, so it would be silly for me to do that.

the only thing the software world has ever seen is self-serving bullshit.

On the contrary, GPLed software has become the base for
multi-billion dollar businesses. The GPL is universally
treated as meaning exactly what it says, even by those
who are antagonistic towards it. The few cases of GPL
violation occur through the laziness and inattention of
the small companies who do it.

Good question since the GPL is clearly illegal and unenforcable.

And yet all enforcement measures have succeeded - the violators
all made the source code properly available. Not even a single one
chose to stop using it. It must be terribly frustrating for you to
see people honoring a license you regard as illegal and unenforceable.
Perhaps you should come to the realization that you are wrong.

Except that Verizon told the SFLC to kiss their royal purple ass.

The manufacturer of Verizon's routers, Actiontec, makes the source
code properly available on its web site. You would like to believe
that Verizon is deliberately flouting the GPL, but there is no
evidence that this is true.

Rjack

2009-02-27 12:09:57 UTC

Post by Rjack
Put your money where your mouth is and use legal argumentation and
authority instead of empty rhetoric

I'm not a lawyer, so it would be silly for me to do that.

Well then continue to use empty rhetoric. It won't convince many
people but do your best Hymen. Do your best.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

Hyman Rosen

2009-02-27 17:44:35 UTC

It won't convince many people but do your best

I never expect to convince the GPL opponents, but I will
do my best to counter their incorrect statements when they
make them, for the benefit of the few other readers who
have not yet killfiled us.

Rjack

2009-02-27 19:09:39 UTC

It won't convince many people but do your best

I never expect to convince the GPL opponents, but I will do my
best to counter their incorrect statements when they make them,
for the benefit of the few other readers who have not yet
killfiled us.

They haven't killfiled "us" Hymen, just you. I'm too pretty.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

Alexander Terekhov

2009-02-26 20:36:13 UTC

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
Notice that the FSF does nothing at all to prevent software developers
from doing anything they wish, as long as they do not involve themselves
with GPLed code.

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3737586_2/Richard-Stallman-Live-and-Unplugged.htm

"Developer: But freedom comes with responsibilities. On one side is
freedom, and on the other is the rights of the people who create the
content

Stallman: [getting agitated]: No, no, no, they have no right to
subjugate others! Software developers have no right to take away from
other people the freedoms they are entitled to. And so non-free software
is completely unethical and should not exist at all. Thats why I work
on free software. We will give them the free software so your non-free
software will fail! [big laugh and applause from crowd].

Developer: Theres a fundamental fallacy in what youre saying. I dont
have anything against you writing free software

Stallman: But I have something against your writing non-free software!
[Big audience laugh] You subjugate other people! You want to keep them
divided and helpless."

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

Rjack

2009-02-26 20:52:39 UTC

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
Notice that the FSF does nothing at all to prevent software
developers from doing anything they wish, as long as they do
not involve themselves with GPLed code.

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3737586_2/Richard-Stallman-Live-and-Unplugged.htm
"Developer: But freedom comes with responsibilities. On one side
is freedom, and on the other is the rights of the people who
create the content–
Stallman: [getting agitated]: No, no, no, they have no right to
subjugate others! Software developers have no right to take away
from other people the freedoms they are entitled to. And so
non-free software is completely unethical and should not exist at
all. That’s why I work on free software. We will give them the
free software so your non-free software will fail! [big laugh and
applause from crowd].
Developer: There’s a fundamental fallacy in what you’re saying. I
don’t have anything against you writing free software–
Stallman: But I have something against your writing non-free
software! [Big audience laugh] You subjugate other people! You
want to keep them divided and helpless."

Free at last! Free at last! Stallman has freed us from the surly
bonds of proprietary servitude! Surely goodness and mercy shall
follow us all the days of our lives -- and we shall gratefully
donate our dollars to the Free Software Foundation.

Hyman Rosen

2009-02-26 22:51:40 UTC

Post by Rjack
Free at last! Free at last! Stallman has freed us from the surly
bonds of proprietary servitude! Surely goodness and mercy shall
follow us all the days of our lives -- and we shall gratefully
donate our dollars to the Free Software Foundation.

Donors to the FSF donate because they share the goals of the FSF.
I'm bemused by the notion that you find this peculiar. Stallman
is doing his best to assure that users of software have the right
to run, read, modify, and share it. In a world where digital
restrictions reach into many devices, he appears prescient, and
his concerns are now understandable by the lay public, not just
by programmers.

Rjack

2009-02-26 23:38:10 UTC

Post by Rjack
Free at last! Free at last! Stallman has freed us from the
surly bonds of proprietary servitude! Surely goodness and mercy
shall follow us all the days of our lives -- and we shall
gratefully donate our dollars to the Free Software Foundation.

Prescient? Yehhhh.

Loading Image...

&imgrefurl=http://www.webweavertech.com/ovidiu/weblog/gallery/richard-stallman/richard-stallman-Pages/Image1.html&h=1516&w=1500&sz=743&tbnid=T9zHQqnla4JL-M::&tbnh=150&tbnw=148&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drichard%2Bstallman&hl=en&usg=__yc5x2ysS_q7Ba67jvHOEi0au_IY=&ei=ryenSbeYPIzanQf30qTaDw&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=7&ct=image&cd=1

Hyman Rosen

2009-02-27 06:55:22 UTC

Post by Rjack
Prescient? Yehhhh.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.webweavertech.com/ovidiu/weblog/gallery/richard-stallman/richard-stallman-Images/1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.webweavertech.com/ovidiu/weblog/gallery/richard-stallman/richard-stallman-Pages/Image1.html&h=1516&w=1500&sz=743&tbnid=T9zHQqnla4JL-M::&tbnh=150&tbnw=148&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drichard%2Bstallman&hl=en&usg=__yc5x2ysS_q7Ba67jvHOEi0au_IY=&ei=ryenSbeYPIzanQf30qTaDw&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=7&ct=image&cd=1

Why do you believe that a humorous photo of Stallman
in costume constitutes an argument that he was not
prescient?

Hyman Rosen

2009-02-26 22:28:18 UTC

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by Hyman Rosen
Notice that the FSF does nothing at all to prevent software developers
from doing anything they wish, as long as they do not involve themselves
with GPLed code.

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3737586_2/Richard-Stallman-Live-and-Unplugged.htm
Stallman: But I have something against your writing non-free software!

Notice that Stallman does nothing at all to prevent software
developers from doing anything they wish, as long as they do
not involve themselves with GPLed code.

Notice that expressing the opinion that someone is doing
something immoral and unethical does not constitute acting
to prevent them from doing it, except so far as they may
be persuaded to change.

Alexander Terekhov

2009-02-26 22:50:04 UTC

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]

Post by Hyman Rosen
Notice that Stallman does nothing at all to prevent software
developers from doing anything they wish, as long as they do
not involve themselves with GPLed code.

http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch07.html

-----
The circumstances of the so-called "Symbolics War" of 1982-1983 depend
heavily on the source doing the telling. When Symbolics executives
noticed that their latest features were still appearing in the AI Lab
Lisp Machine and, by extension, the LMI Lisp machine, they installed a
"spy" program on Stallman's computer terminal. Stallman says he was
rewriting the features from scratch, taking advantage of the license's
review clause but also taking pains to make the source code as different
as possible. Symbolics executives argued otherwise and took their case
to MIT administration. According to 1994 book, The Brain Makers: Genius,
Ego, and Greed, and the Quest for Machines That Think, written by Harvey
Newquist, the administration responded with a warning to Stallman to
"stay away" from the Lisp Machine project.8 According to Stallman, MIT
administrators backed Stallman up. "I was never threatened," he says. "I
did make changes in my practices, though. Just to be ultra safe, I no
longer read their source code. I used only the documentation and wrote
the code from that."

Whatever the outcome, the bickering solidified Stallman's resolve. With
no source code to review, Stallman filled in the software gaps according
to his own tastes and enlisted members of the AI Lab to provide a
continuous stream of bug reports. He also made sure LMI programmers had
direct access to the changes. "I was going to punish Symbolics if it was
the last thing I did," Stallman says.

Such statements are revealing. Not only do they shed light on Stallman's
nonpacifist nature, they also reflect the intense level of emotion
triggered by the conflict. According to another Newquist-related story,
Stallman became so irate at one point that he issued an email
threatening to "wrap myself in dynamite and walk into Symbolics'
offices."9 Although Stallman would deny any memory of the email and
still describes its existence as a "vicious rumor," he acknowledges that
such thoughts did enter his head. "I definitely did have fantasies of
killing myself and destroying their building in the process," Stallman
says. "I thought my life was over."5
-----

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

Hyman Rosen

2009-02-26 23:25:31 UTC

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by Hyman Rosen
Notice that Stallman does nothing at all to prevent software
developers from doing anything they wish, as long as they do
not involve themselves with GPLed code.

http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch07.html

Interesting-if-true story. I'm puzzled as to what makes it a
relevant response to my post, though, as it concerns events
which took place 25 years ago.

Chris Ahlstrom

2009-02-26 22:44:44 UTC

After takin' a swig o' grog, Hyman Rosen belched out

Post by Rjack
Egad!! I thought *freedom* for software developers meant licensing
their software any way they wished. I didn't know it was the GPL or
the highway.

Post by Rjack
Your link to the self-serving rant by Richard Stallman does nothing
but confirm his monomanical compulsion to destroy the concept of
intellectual property.

Stallman believes that users of software should have the freedom to
run, read, modify, and share it.

And often, it is developers that are users.

Post by Hyman Rosen
In the case of X Window, for a very
long time its users had those freedoms, but they could have been lost
because the organization primarily responsible for it had the legal
right to do so. Therefore, he urges that free software developers use
the GPL to prevent situations like this from occurring.
Notice that the FSF does nothing at all to prevent software developers
from doing anything they wish, as long as they do not involve themselves
with GPLed code. They operate by presenting attractive alternatives so
that developers of non-free software are disadvantaged in the marketplace
by having to duplicate functionality that is available for free to free
software developers. To the extent that this upsets you, they are succeeding.

The GPL is what has made Free software possible.

--
Now it's time to say goodbye
To all our company...
M-I-C (see you next week!)
K-E-Y (Why? Because we LIKE you!)
M-O-U-S-E.

JEDIDIAH

2009-02-26 21:16:24 UTC