rms@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) (12/13/90)
The purpose of the GNU project is to promote cooperation within society, in particular the sharing of software. We write software in order to get people involved in sharing. The means we use are technical, but the purpose is sociopolitical. There are occasionally people who want to use GNU software but have contempt for the reasons for which people work on it. They tell the volunteers, in effect, "Shut up with the philosophy and write me some more software." To me, this seems ungrateful as well as short-sighted. Promoting a different attitude is what the GNU project is all about. This is not done by force--people can keep that attitude if they want to. However, if they disagree with the aims of the GNU project, the proper place for them to say so is on gnu.misc.discuss. That's the group for discussing whether the aims and methods of the GNU project are good ones. The other GNU newsgroups/mailing lists are for *carrying out* the work of the GNU project--to attain both the immediate technical subgoals, and the ultimate social goals.
00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer) (12/13/90)
In article <9012122154.AA24034@mole.ai.mit.edu>, rms@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: > Promoting a different attitude is what the GNU project is all about. > This is not done by force--people can keep that attitude if they want > to. However, if they disagree with the aims of the GNU project, the > proper place for them to say so is on gnu.misc.discuss. That's the > group for discussing whether the aims and methods of the GNU project > are good ones. The other GNU newsgroups/mailing lists are for > *carrying out* the work of the GNU project--to attain both the > immediate technical subgoals, and the ultimate social goals. Whether I agree or disagree with the aims of the GNU project and/or of the FSF, or even whether I can determine to what extent I agree and/or disagree with these aims is completely irrelevant to any discussion I can imagine on the features/merits/syntax/semantics/etc of the c++ language. It does seem, however, that rms does not exactly practice what he preaches and restrict meta-discussion to groups like gnu.misc.discuss, but instead feels free to inject discussions of topics like software patents into newsgroups like comp.lang.c++ regardless of specific relevance. This is not to say that I do not find these discussions interesting, nor to say that I am unsympathetic to his points. It is merely that I fail to see the specific RELEVANCE of this discussion to the c++ language. I realize that gnu mailing lists are not "the net" and that even if we were actually dealing only with a netnews newsgroup, there is no mechanism for restricting people from posting any message in any newsgroup, *even if it were desireable*. In any case, I have neither the power nor the desire to restrict rms from posting anything he wants to in what are effectively his own mailing lists. On the other hand, this is exactly why the gnu.* mailing lists, etc. SHOULD be decoupled from comp.lang.c++. If rms's mailing list were decoupled from comp.lang.c++, then flamage for irrelevancy would become more appropriate, like the flames apparently received by the guy who recently posted a (large) item about something called "mud" to rec.games.go. If I want to read about stupid adventure games, then I will read whatever newsgroups are appropriate to that topic, I should not have to weed out irrelevancies from the groups that I do read. Similarly, (and NOT to compare the level of interest or intelligence displayed with "mud" :-) if I or anyone wants to read about the c++ language, then we should not have to weed out articles about software patents, which have nothing in particular to do with c++, however much importance they have for the field of computing as a whole. (In fact, I happen to agree with rms that the issue is an important one and merits discussion. It is simply that I disagree on whether the c++ newsgroup is the best place for that discussion.) In short, on the subject of whether to decouple the gnu.* mailing lists from comp.lang.c++, I concur that they should be separated. ======== Paul Neubauer neubauer@bsu-cs.bsu.edu 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.bsu.edu neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.UUCP 00PRNEUBAUER@BSUVAX1.BITNET
jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) (12/25/90)
In article <9012122154.AA24034@mole.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: |The purpose of the GNU project is to promote cooperation within |society, in particular the sharing of software. We write software in |order to get people involved in sharing. The means we use are |technical, but the purpose is sociopolitical. Many people have many differing ideas of what it means to be able to share ideas. For some people "sharing" means making libraries available at affordable prices, and without prohibitive licensing agreements. Other people say: "I'll share, but only among my friends, and people who agree with me." [Sounds like a country-club to me.] Other people see "sharing" as the free and open exchange of ideas without childish insults and name calling. To other people "sharing" means having a notes forum, based around "C++" for example where they can meet, ask for help, and be able to get intelligent answers to their questions. These people are not free to "share" comp.lang.c++ when it is swamped by political flame wars. I believe most people using comp.lang.c++ believe in sharing, believe in reusable software, believe in avoiding unnecessary and boring repetitive copying of the prior work of other programmers. We just disagree on the proper way to best "share" our efforts for the benifit of society. |There are occasionally people who want to use GNU software but have |contempt for the reasons for which people work on it. They tell the |volunteers, in effect, "Shut up with the philosophy and write me some |more software." To me, this seems ungrateful as well as short-sighted. Perhaps because Stallman misunderstands what they say: first of all they don't have comtempt for the reasons people work on gnu -- which is to try to share their efforts with fellow programmers, rather they have comtempt for the methods used to try to force the sharing of software -- which is more punitive and restrictive legal agreements. Second, they don't say "shut up and write me some more software," they say "shut up and write *your* software -- it'll never be *my* software while it contains punitive licensing agreements." |Promoting a different attitude is what the GNU project is all about. |This is not done by force--people can keep that attitude if they want |to. However, if they disagree with the aims of the GNU project, the |proper place for them to say so is on gnu.misc.discuss. That's the |group for discussing whether the aims and methods of the GNU project |are good ones. The other GNU newsgroups/mailing lists are for |*carrying out* the work of the GNU project--to attain both the |immediate technical subgoals, and the ultimate social goals. If gnu.misc.discuss is the correct notes-group to discuss GNU philosophies, then can we ask that Stallman also direct his comments there? Thus freeing up some non-gnu notes groups such as comp.lang.c++ for their proper role, namely discussing the C++ language ? Or does Stallman place such a priority on the work of GNU that trashing other notes groups means nothing to him? Are other people also allowed to persue what they believe are the proper courses of action towards the benefit of society, or is Stallman to dominate all news groups with his philosophies? Please, can we get off this crapola and back to C++ ? It wastes my time, your time, and Stallman's precious time.