harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison) (06/29/90)
In article <1168@umb.umb.edu>, karl@umb.umb.edu (Karl Berry) writes: > Kernighan's books are not ``free'' in the FSF sense -- the > source is not freely available for people to > look at, modify, and redistribute. Therefore, it is > consistent to not cite such sources. I am not saying that it is inconsistent, but that it is intellectually dishonest not to cite one's sources, whether they are copyrighted or in the public domain. In this specific case, I am also saying that it is rude and spiteful to refer to Kernighan as an information hoarder. > In general, I believe that the underlying principle > is that anything which can be easily copied should be > legal to copy, including book manuscripts. Does this refer to *anything* which can be easily copied? How about patents, works of art, etc. Does the FSF believe in *any* intellectual property rights? > Disclaimer: I do work for the FSF, but I don't speak for it, > or Richard Stallman. If someone who does speak for the FSF can clarify their position, I would appreciate it. I am willing to believe their intentions are good, but I am concerned about the apparent attitude that any material that does not conform to the party line cannot be mentioned. -- Mark Harrison harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (214)518-5050 {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison standard disclaimers apply...
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (06/30/90)
In article <387@necssd.NEC.COM> harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison) writes:
If someone who does speak for the FSF can clarify their position, I
would appreciate it. I am willing to believe their intentions are
good...
It seems that this discussion became inadvertently, but innocently,
segmented between two newsgroups. The segmentation seems to have
happened at a critical moment: between the acrimonious accusations
and the authoritative explanations. The FSF people in question have
described the situation in gnu.misc.discuss. Since comp.sources.d
missed the explanations, it's easy to see how misunderstandings could
arise. Please go check the recent traffic in gnu.misc.discuss if
you're curious about what happened (hint: It seems to have been a
classic case of miscommunication between widely-separated co-workers
on the project.)" Maynard) (07/03/90)
In article <BOB.90Jun29175914@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >It seems that this discussion became inadvertently, but innocently, >segmented between two newsgroups. The segmentation seems to have >happened at a critical moment: between the acrimonious accusations >and the authoritative explanations. The FSF people in question have >described the situation in gnu.misc.discuss. Since comp.sources.d >missed the explanations, it's easy to see how misunderstandings could >arise. Please go check the recent traffic in gnu.misc.discuss if >you're curious about what happened (hint: It seems to have been a >classic case of miscommunication between widely-separated co-workers >on the project.) How about summarizing the relevant postings for those of us who don't get gnu.*? I'd like to see something authoritative that shows the FSF as actually being reasonable about something... -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. "It's a hardware bug!" "It's a +---------------------------------------- software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_
charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) (07/03/90)
>> If someone who does speak for the FSF can clarify their position, I >> would appreciate it. I am willing to believe their intentions are >> good... > Please go check the recent traffic in gnu.misc.discuss if > you're curious about what happened (hint: It seems to have been a > classic case of miscommunication between widely-separated co-workers > on the project.) gnu.misc.discuss is not available at this site. I have no idea how many sites do and do not receive it. -- Charles Brown charles@cv.hp.com or charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!charles or "Hey you!" Not representing my employer.
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (07/03/90)
In article <4310006@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes: gnu.misc.discuss is not available at this site. I have no idea how many sites do and do not receive it. From: reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) Newsgroups: news.lists Subject: USENET Readership report for Jun 90 Message-ID: <1990Jul2.154323.29469@wrl.dec.com> Date: 2 Jul 90 15:43:23 GMT +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide. | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month) | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month) | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/reader | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsreaders | | | | | | | | who read this group. V V V V V V V V 252 19000 475 74% 55 95.2 35% 0.01 1.8% gnu.misc.discuss In addition, a couple dozen people receive it via the mailing list `gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu' and a few exploders.