For the record, this discussion came about because of questions as to
whether similar concerns should be considerd wrt Microsoft.
I just felt that if I was going to say something like "do we want to
open this door" relating to discussing Microsoft's priorities relating
to FOSS, and suggesting that it the FSF's hands in this area are not
clean, then I probably should back up what I say.
I am *not* asking for an inquiry into the FSF. I am *not* asking for
this to be held against any of their licenses (though I have a hard time
imagining how the AGPL can ever be held as "Free" by any standard other
than "because it was released by the FSF."
The post is also a bit of background into why I consider the FSF as
pernicious when it comes to Free Software as any proprietary software
vendor.
But that is what it is. It does *not* bear any relevance to the OSI
other than to provide context for other remarks I have made. I would
note that many people including Rick Moen and Chris Dibona have either
asked me to back up what I have said on other threads or offered to
discuss it. I figured that such a post was only fair even if only
marginally on-topic.
Best WIshes,
Chris Travers
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chris Travers (
chris@...):
>
>
>> Hi all;
>>
>
> [incredibly long post]
>
> Chris seems to want list-members to conduct an inquiry into FSF itself
> and conduct of FSF spokesmen (especially their "loyalty to their ideals"),
> as opposed to examining FSF-originated licences on their merits measured
> against, oh, the Open Source Definition.
>
> Speaking for myself, gee, Chris, that just doesn't sound interesting
> (coming across, in fact, as a huge and rather disreputable waste of time),
> and I suggest you look up the phrase "tu quoque".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
begin:vcard
fn:Chris Travers
n:Travers;Chris
email;internet:chris@...
tel;work:509-888-0220
tel;cell:509-630-7794
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard
