weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (09/14/88)
In article <756@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <14061@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >: In article <720@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl (T. William Wells) writes: >: Of course this is going to be talked about on USENET. Trying to hide >: it from everyone (maybe you have customers who read the net?) isn't >: going to work. >Perhaps I wasn't clear, so let me try again: *I* do not want to >talk about FSF on the net. Here is what you said: |Uk. However much we might disagree on Byte (and I think we |actually agree and are arguing over words), let's not push FSF |and friends. Their philosophy would make the computer business |nonexistent. Please do not respond to this on the net; if you |want to talk about the FSF, send me e-mail. You are more than welcome to not talk about FSF on the net. You start by not taking gratuitous swipes against them when others are discussing FSF, and going so far as to ask people to back off from their positions regarding FSF. > I would expect that to turn into a >flame war (on historical evidence) and I do not want to >participate. Most of the flames seem based on ignorance of FSF. > If anyone else wants to talk about FSF, I have no >objections (not that they would matter anyway); I just won't >answer. So practice what you preach. >: FSF is not going to make the computer business non-existent. It >: might make *your* computer business non-existent. So what? >Not likely. So what's your concern then? >: Do you use any free software? rn maybe? inews? elm? GNU Emacs? >Sure. I have no objections at all to free software. What I >object to is the philosophy that goes along with their free >software. So ignore their philosophy. Just don't violate their licenses. What's the big deal? >: Just waiting for the Randian analysis of what is wrong with FSF.... >Well you won't get it here, unless another Objectivist wants to >try it. If you really want that analysis, you can ask me vie >e-mail. You do know that John Gilmore, who moves in Libertarian/Objectivist circles of thought, is a major FSF supporter? (His login is "gnu".) Perhaps the two of you could argue it out in alt.individualism? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720