Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.oz.au!ok
From: ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Questions about "Free Software Foundation" (long)
Message-ID: <2254@munnari.oz.au>
Date: 29 Sep 89 12:50:33 GMT
References: <980@mrsvr.UUCP> <6590268@hplsla.HP.COM> <6602@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> <6669@thor.acc.stolaf.edu>
Sender: news@cs.mu.oz.au
Lines: 67

In article <6669@thor.acc.stolaf.edu>, mike@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Mike Haertel) writes:
> Not "because it's copylefted" but "because it's copylefted and
> you obviously don't understand the terms of the copyleft."

If that is true, and it may be, that in itself is DAMNING.

> This is complete and utter nonsense.  Have you ever actually *read*
> the copyleft?  It only takes a few minutes . . .

By actual measurement, it takes me four minutes to cast my eyes over
the copyleft.  I have been reading and re-reading it for several days.

> Ah, now we come to the crux of the issue.  I can only conclude from
> this statement that Mr. O'Keefe has *never* *read* the license,
> and therefore deserves everyone's flames, for posting misinformation
> to the net.

People who can "only conclude" things which are utterly contrary to fact
are at least as deserving of flames as I.  I have taken care to read
every word of the copyleft.  I have taken care to parse every sentence.
I have received six E-mail messages about this already, and before
replying to each of them I have taken care to re-read every single
word of the copyleft.  It may well be true that I have misunderstood.
I repeat, that in itself is damning.

> #  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a portion or derivative of
> # it, under Paragraph 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> # Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

Here's a curious thing.  The thing I'm looking at is called "version 1"
of the GNU General Public Licence; it's dated February 1989; and the text
Mike Haertel quotes most resembles section 4 of that document.  Evidently
he is not reading exactly the same document I'm reading.  (The Oaklisp
copyleft is still another version.)

> #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

Mr Haertel, the information I provided was this:
	someone who has made an honest attempt to read the copyleft
	with the utmost care believes X.  As a result, that person
	has concluded that distributing enhancements to GNU sources
	would be personally costly to him.  If he is right, that's
	bad.  If he is wrong, it's bad that the copyleft is so hard
	to read.
The point at issue was not really what the FSF copyleft is intended
to do, but whether it has the effect of increasing software sharing
or not.  In my case it has had the opposite effect.  Mr Haertel can
not deny this.  That is a significant fact, not "blatant misinformation".

It should be noted that Mr Haertel made a wild and unsupported guess
about whether I had read the copyleft or not, and quoted a document
other than either of the versions I was referring to.  And he calls
_me_ "scum of the earth".

Enough already.  I apologise for taking up the time of readers of this
group.  But I entreat you, if _you_ want to encourage software sharing,
make your copyright or copyleft notices as simple and plain as you
possibly can.

-- 
GNUs are more derived than other extant alcelaphines,| Richard A. O'Keefe
such as bonteboks, and show up later in the fossil   | visiting Melbourne
record than less highly derived species.  (Eldredge) | ok@munmurra.cs.mu.OZ.au