[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]

Re: [LI] Message from RMS.



Manoj, 

Before I comment here, let me point out that I was (and still am)
addressing the way *Ragoo* strafes the LI lists with something he has
little understanding of to begin with, and nothing to gain with. I think
my last para made that abundantly clear.

I *do* have issues with RMS and GPL, but they have nothing to do with you
or the Debian community - in fact they are focussed totally on
fringe-prophets like Ragoo who have nothing better to do that get other
people riled. I do *not* equate Debian with RMS and GPL.

On 4 Dec 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> >>"Atul" == Atul Chitnis <achitnis@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>         Actually, they use the perfectly capitalistic concept of
>  intellectual property and copyright law to achieve what they believe
>  is a protection of the end user. 

So did the Russians and the East Germans. Except that there is no
protection involved. I object to that term. If you want to defend it,
explain Ragoo's "Rs.60" post to me.

> 
>  Atul> Invoking the holy name of GPL everytime someone makes/talks
>  Atul> money is a sure-fire way of killing the concept
>  Atul> altogether. There are realities that are at work here, and GPL
>  Atul> isn't playing the game by the rules.
> 
>         Rubish. Shoe me where there is a clause in the GPL that says
>  you can't charge what you wish for your GPL'd software. The artistic
>  licence has an (unenforceable) no charge clause, but not the GPL.

Again, what does this have to do with Ragoo's "Rs.60" attitude? 

>         I must say this is FUD.

You are entitled to your opinion on this, as I am to mine.

> 
>  Atul> To top that, the "hippo-crazy" [sic] angle is strong, too. Even
>  Atul> RMS had no hassles with accepting money for his work
> 
>         As I said, there is nothing under the GPL, or in RMS's
>  statements, that is against charging money. Red Hat has a market
>  capitalization of Billions selling essentially GPL'd software.

Yes, RH is making money - and hence RH is the devil and "The Microsoft of
the Linux world". (whoah - I just drained by sarcasm barrel on that one -
excuse me while I refill).


>  Atul> (ironically part-sponsored by Microsoft), yet brutally mauls
>  Atul> anyone who remotely stands a chance of making a bit of money
>  Atul> with his work.
> 
>         Quote chapter and verse please. You are bordering on slander.

That's OK. Sue me. RMS will be in Bangalore next month, he will have ample
opportunity to do so. I am not going to turn LIG into a historical
archive.

>  Atul> And he drives people who lack a cause of their own into a
> 
>         That is something I have rarely been accused of.

Exactly, now we are getting to be on the same page - I am not talking
about you! I am talking about an attitude problem being exhibited by an
individual, follwoing the preachings of his Guru, whether this was the
desired effect RMS had in mind or not.

>  Atul> frenzy, which results in posts of the type we get subjected to
>  Atul> every 3 months or so (dependent on the phase of the moon and
>  Atul> other things, I guess).
> 
>         Taking the low road, I see.

Yes I will. Sometimes, one simply has to stoop to the other person's level
to look him in the eye to tell him something.

>  Atul> I see no sense at all in this approach. The whole idea behind
>  Atul> OpenSource is the liberal-minded attitude that goes with
>  Atul> it. GPL and RMS's strife-riddled, politically motivated
>  Atul> "comments" on how the industry should evolve (in his own way of
>  Atul> thinking) is turning away far too many people for comfort.
> 
>         The GPL is an integral part of the DFSG, and its offspring,
>  the OSD.

GPL as a concept is not bad - it's interpretation and application is. Karl
Marx wrote Das Kapital - that does not make him responsible for the
Russian economic situation or the (lack) of rights people have there.
However Stalin and his merry (?) men are a different proposition.

>         Personally, even Corel is trying to play fast and loose with
>  the licence terms (did you know about a half dozen or so Debian
>  developers are now legally barred from  using the Debian based Corel
>  Linux?) 

Yep, I am aware of that - I read Bruce's posts. I don;t want to get into
words over that, but it appears to me that Corel Linux is an example of
GPL-application gone bad.

>  Atul> RMS seems to be hellbent on making Linux the bad boy, while at
>  Atul> the same time desperately trying to latch onto the evergrowing
>  Atul> popularity of Linux.
> 
>         No. He merely points out that the Linux kernel uses a lot of
>  components of the GNU system, and in his opinion, the GNU project
>  should be attributed to.
> 
>         Sounds reasonable to me. 

It *is* reasonable, but what is not is RMS's way of trying to *enforce*
this acknowledgement - complete with the antics, the staged "protest
speecheds, the embarrasment of an entire community, etc.

>  Atul> What stops him from *finally* getting Hurd into a usable shape
>  Atul> so that he can have his own "free" kernel?
> 
>         We are working on it. Stay tuned for Debian GNU/HURD, to be
>  along side Debian GNU/Linux.
> 
>         The HURD is several decades ahead of UNIX based Linux OS --
>  and cutting edge research operating systems take time to
>  stabilize. Linux, after all, is based on 30 year old technology. The
>  HURD is far newer.

JESUS CHRIST, MANOJ! YOU SOUND LIKE MICROSOFT! WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT WITH
SOAP THIS INSTANT!

>         You mean they were too stupid to understand the licence they
>  were releasing their code under?  How dumb you think we are?

Did I specifically mention "Manoj Srivasatava *anywhere* in my post? And
are you responsible for all of the GNU utilities? Now, now.....

>         This is just as bad -- you castigate a whole philosophy
>  because of one individual. Shall I remind you Ragoo is an indian as
>  well as a GNU lover? Shall I say the same thing about indians just on
>  this one example? 

Sorry friend, you tried that approach on me earlier this year. I
apologised then, I am not apologising now. Ragoo is an individual first,
and responsible for his actions (however irresponsible they may be). He
feels that he is furthering the cause of RMS, GNU and GPL by being
obnoxious and emulating RMS's antics. If Kevin Mitnick ever gets out of
jail and makes his own distro (Mitnix?), Ragoo will be the first to climb
on the bandwagon - *that's* the kind of guy he is.

>         Logic, whre is thy sting?

Dunno, should we have a beer and try and figure it out?

> 
>  Atul> RMS's stand *used* to be (this may have changed) that software
>  Atul> should be free, services should be charged.
> 
> 
>         Oh god, not again. "FREE AS IN SPEECH, NOT FREE AS IN BEER"

Hey, don't carry coals to Newcastle! I am completely aware of the
Speech/Beer arguement and have used it often enough myself! 

My point (as I hinted at in the same sentence) is that it *used* to be
about free software (free as in free as a bird) but seems to be focussing
now on "closed/paid software is bad". 

>         I give up. I am dissappointed at the amount of ignorance and
>  bigotry displayed in this post.

As I am in the (what appears to be natural) assumption that I was talking
about you and your fellow Debian developers, which I was not. I am
surprised that you felt attacked by my post.

>  Atul> but how does that relate to Ragoo's comments on people paying
>  Atul> Rs.60 for food at a ILUG meet?
> 
>         Could it be because he is indian? That is just as logical as
>  your accusation.

I give up. I am dissappointed at the amount of ignorance and bigotry
displayed in this post.

>         So you take it out on poor innocent, GPL lovers. IMHO, this
>  post is equally distruptive as Ragoo's, and from a far more
>  unexpected corner.

Uh, actually not. I take on the mindless, subserviant, confused and
disruptive interpreters of GPL who have nothing better to do than make
life miserable for others.

>         I really expected better from you. Mea Culpa.

Ah, I am one-up on you. I fully expected both this post of yours and your
reply to Arun - half of the stuff (including the intro to this message
here) was written several hours ago in anticipation of your post that I
*knew* was coming.

So *I* am not disappointed.

Atul