ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (10/17/89)
On 16 Oct 89 07:16:41 GMT,
rms@AI.MIT.EDU said [from gnu.emacs]:
rms> [...] the ACLU will fight for your right to say just about
rms> anything at all, even to speak against their cause. No one is more in
rms> favor of free speech than they. But they won't grant you any right to
rms> send your own material to their mailing list, or even to leave
rms> literature in their lobby for people passing by to pick up. They
rms> might let you send something, if they think it would help their cause,
rms> but they would insist on reading it before deciding.
The difference is that the ACLU is paying for {the mailing, the upkeep of
the mailing list, the rent of the lobby}. The transport mechanisms (at
least; I don't know the details of the mailing list upkeep, so I'm not
qualified to comment) are not owned by or paid for by FSF. Some portion of
it is being paid for by my {tuition, taxes}.
rms> Now, perhaps you disapprove of them, and most other organizations, for
rms> this policy. But if you don't, then it is a double standard to
rms> criticize the FSF for doing the same thing.
Depends on who's paying for it.
rms> (Some day, in a hypertext world, it might be useful to eliminate
rms> proprietary mailing lists. Suppose that anyone could attach a
rms> footnote to any publication, pointing to an article expressing
rms> disagreement, and any reader would see this footnote--that might be a
rms> good idea. However, it's not fair to impose this on the FSF alone.
rms> Apple should at the same time have to let us attach footnotes to their
rms> sales literature.)
Last I checked, Apple still paid all their own expenses on sales
literature. I do like the hypertext idea, though--sort of a super-USENET
in some ways.
rms> However, info-gnu-emacs (and its repeater, gnu.emacs) was not supposed
rms> to be a discussion group. It may have seemed to be one, because (not
rms> liking security) we left it up to the readers to decide what was a
rms> useful announcement. Some of them started using it as a discussion
rms> group, which showed that there was a demand for one; but
rms> info-gnu-emacs is not it. We created gnu.misc.discuss to serve for
rms> political discussions.
Right. Political *announcements* by the FSF can, of course, go in any
gnu.* group. Glad we could clear that up.
rms> The FSF had no obligation to set up such a discussion group. Most
rms> activist organizations don't make a forum for their opponents. We did
rms> it because we also care about the freedom of speech to the point of
rms> making a place for our critics.
rms> But that doesn't mean we will let them tell us how to run our show.
As it should be.
--
Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet>
"Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand."