Re: [LI] Message from RMS.

[Raj Mathur <raju@xxxxxxx>]

Atul, stop trying to hide behind paper screens.  You deliberately
brought in an attack on RMS and the GPL with one para about Ragoo at
the end, and now you claim that you were talking about Ragoo all the
time?  Wow, that's a cool one!  If you want to talk about the GPL and
RMS, be a man and admit to your statements.  In other words, put up or
...

Regards,

-- Raju

>>>>> "Atul" == Atul Chitnis <achitnis@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

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

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

    Atul> 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.

    Atul> So did the Russians and the East Germans. Except that there
    Atul> is no protection involved. I object to that term. If you
    Atul> 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
    Atul> GPL 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.

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

    >> I must say this is FUD.

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

    >>
    Atul> To top that, the "hippo-crazy" [sic] angle is strong,
    Atul> too. Even RMS had no hassles with accepting money for his
    Atul> 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.

    Atul> Yes, RH is making money - and hence RH is the devil and "The
    Atul> Microsoft of the Linux world". (whoah - I just drained by
    Atul> 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.

    Atul> That's OK. Sue me. RMS will be in Bangalore next month, he
    Atul> will have ample opportunity to do so. I am not going to turn
    Atul> 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.

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

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

    Atul> Yes I will. Sometimes, one simply has to stoop to the other
    Atul> 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
    Atul> behind OpenSource is the liberal-minded attitude that goes
    Atul> with it. GPL and RMS's strife-riddled, politically motivated
    Atul> "comments" on how the industry should evolve (in his own way
    Atul> of thinking) is turning away far too many people for
    Atul> comfort.
    >>  The GPL is an integral part of the DFSG, and its offspring,
    >> the OSD.

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

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

    Atul> RMS seems to be hellbent on making Linux the bad boy, while
    Atul> at the same time desperately trying to latch onto the
    Atul> evergrowing 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.

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

    Atul> What stops him from *finally* getting Hurd into a usable
    Atul> shape 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.

    Atul> JESUS CHRIST, MANOJ! YOU SOUND LIKE MICROSOFT! WASH YOUR
    Atul> 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?

    Atul> Did I specifically mention "Manoj Srivasatava *anywhere* in
    Atul> my post? And are you responsible for all of the GNU
    Atul> 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?

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

    >> Logic, whre is thy sting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Atul> I give up. I am dissappointed at the amount of ignorance and
    Atul> 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.

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

    >> I really expected better from you. Mea Culpa.

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

    Atul> So *I* am not disappointed.

    Atul> Atul