-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mike Miller wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Josh Paetzel wrote: > > [snip] >> I've had the (mis)fortune of actually meeting RMS, and he's so >> dedicated to using Free Software that he won't go to SSL enabled >> websites for example. > > Is SSL non-free? I didn't know that. > Yes, the FSF has been very aggressive about protecting the phrase Free Software. They define it as software having GPL compatable licensing. Which OpenSSL (really the only implimentation of SSL that matters) does not have. > >> While I admire his zealotry, (in the same way I admire chastity I >> suppose, a trait best found in others) I find it a bit silly when >> licenses stop you from using software. Especially when it's not "Free >> enough" by virtue of having less restrictions on it than your >> definition of Free Software. > > Stallman does things mostly to promote his ideas. He must know that > very few people will follow in his footsteps. He wrote to me once to > tell me to stop using Pine because of its license. I have persisted > anyway, but if I were to write to him again, I would use Alpine. I have > Alpine installed but it is prone to crash on my Solaris box. Once I get > everything onto Linux, it is likely that I will use Alpine exclusively > and stop using Pine. > > I really liked your line about chastity. > > >> I suppose I could go on about how the FSF claims Free Software puts an >> end to reimplimenting things, and then point out that they are >> responsible for as many reimplimentations as anyone, but it's far too >> early to step on the toes of starry-eyed hero worshippers. > > I would like to hear about that. I don't know what "reimplementations" > means -- are Linux distros considered reimplementations? > Linux itself is a reimplimentation of unix. Many of the GNU tools are reimplimentations of tools that were freely available simply to have a GPL licensed version. Hence gawk, gnu grep, gnu sed, so on and so forth. > Am I one of the "starry-eyed hero worshippers?" That sounds like an > exaggeration. All I am saying is that Stallman has done things that I > consider to be great, and he has done them at a huge personal cost -- > tell me how many of his ilk at MIT's AI lab in the 1970s aren't > multi-millionaires today. Not Stallman. In return he has my respect > and admiration and my thanks (and I paid for a bunch of his manuals even > though I didn't have to). My support for Stallman isn't necessarily > permanent or unconditional though -- if he does something that I > consider to be improper or crazy, or whatever, I will say so. So please > tell us more. > > Mike > No idea. Are you? Historically on this list suggesting that RMS is anything other than divinely inspired has been met with harsh criticism. - -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel PGP: 8A48 EF36 5E9F 4EDA 5ABC 11B4 26F9 01F1 27AF AECB -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFI4SbxJvkB8SevrssRAsjpAJ91I6gY2q0xunQUo35zeriOH1+XKACfVQcj ZuI/uVJkNvHGv+rAbqAgjfY= =MxoO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----