Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cimshop!davidm
From: cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Questions about "Free Software Foundation" (long)
Message-ID: 
Date: 2 Oct 89 17:36:20 GMT
References: <980@mrsvr.UUCP> <6590268@hplsla.HP.COM> <6602@thor.acc.stolaf.edu>
	<2245@munnari.oz.au> <6669@thor.acc.stolaf.edu>
Sender: davidm@cimshop.UUCP
Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California.
Lines: 22
In-reply-to: mike@thor.acc.stolaf.edu's message of 29 Sep 89 03:30:09 GMT

In article <6669@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> mike@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Mike Haertel) writes:
>
>   #ifdef FLAME
>   Mr. O'Keefe, it is my personal belief that people such as you,
>   who inflict blatant misinformation on other readers of the net,
>   are among the scum of the earth.
>   #endif
>
Now hold on a second!  There is no need to post this type of a flame, yet!  It
is very obvious that the GNU "copyleft" has a lot of interpretation and is
still unclear in its intent.  Both you and Mr O'Keefe quoted the same section
in the GNU license and drew two different conclusions.  There is a lot of good
stuff coming out of FSF that people would like to make use of, but, until they
feel comfortable with the "copyleft", they won't.  There did not appear to be
any "blatant misinformation" in what Mr. O'Keefe said, just one interpretation
of a topic that has no clear interpretation yet.  Flaming is the wrong
approach currently -- proof of your interpretation is still needed.

Note: the above does not make any statement about what the "copyleft" intends.

David Masterson
uunet!cimshop!davidm