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