HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 3 Jan 93 23:14:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan3.181426.18968
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1i7jkcINNbkf@life.ai.mit.edu> 
mikc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mike Coughlin) writes:

>In article <1993Jan2.220350.10661@nntp.hut.fi> 
>sakaria@vipunen.hut.fi (Sakari Aaltonen) writes:

SA:
>>Not being a native speaker of English, I'm not aware of the multitude of
>>meanings the word 'free' may possess. However, when 'free' refers to a
>>_ware_, the obvious meaning - obvious to me, that is - is 'no-cost'.
>>Free hardware (or free kitchenware) is something you don't have to pay for; 
>>similarly for free software. 

MC:
>    There are more than enough meanings to the English word "free" to 
>confuse any non-native speaker. And to confuse many native English
>speakers too.

This is hardly an excuse to confuse them any further.

MC:
>    In this discussion we have lost the main idea of the whole business.
>The copyright laws, especially the laws in the United States, are a
>restriction of the freedom of the press. In the case of computer
>software the restrictions have increased lately. The idea of copyleft is
>an attempt to reverse this trend. The source to a computer program 
>cannot be placed in the public domain for the benefit of humanity. Anyone
>may take the source, change it and then copyright it in his own name
>for his own benefit. In order to publish source code for everyone to 
>use freely, it has to be published with a lot of legal restrictions. If
>the law said that the derivative works of writing placed in the public
>domain were also in the public domain, then we would not need anything
>like a copyleft. But the law does not say that. If you want your code
>and everything dervived from using it to be available without 
>restriction everywhere and forever, then you have a real problem.
>Copylefting is one attempt to do it. It is not the perfect answer.
>If the copyright law made better provisions for people who wanted their
>work to be in the public domain or to be truly free, we would have a 
>better solution. 

This is a very nice exposition of the party line.  There is but one
gap left: what is wrong with the way Donald Knuth protects his TeX
software?  The only obligation he imposes on the recipient, is to copy
everything verbatim, and this can be easily worked around by confining
changes to an external file.  Most importantly, unlike the FSF, Knuth
does not proclaim himself the owner of any derivative work.

Look, Michael, you are a very nice, earnest boy, but it is quite
futile for Stallman to send his lieutenants to do a man's job of
arguing.  You guys are just not up to snuff.

MC:
>     I wish the courts would find out what algorithms are and not
>let them be copyrighted and patented.

Agreed, and likewise for the "look and feel" protection.

>-- 
>   Michael Coughlin             mikc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Profiteering at FSF (was: First GNU CD-ROM)
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:26:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia

lenoil@catalogic.com (Robert Lenoil) writes:

>>The CD costs $100 if you are an individual, $400 if you are a
>>business.  This is a distribution fee.  The software is `copylefted',
>>which means you have the the right to copy, change, and redistribute it.
>
>It seems to me that a "distribution fee" would be to recover the costs of
>distribution, which shouldn't differ for individuals vs. businesses. You're
>really stretching the "Free" in "Free Software Foundation" by marking up the
>CD-ROM cost 400% for businesses. I never would have expected such behavior
>from FSF, and am quite disappointed.

To be pedantic, it's only a 300% mark-up.

Oh, and by the way, the "Free" in "Free Software Foundation" refers to
freedom, not price. So long you distribute the source code, you can
charge what you like.

-- 
Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU      
This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but 
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: aclark@netcom.com (Al Clark)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:38:34 GMT

In article <C0AtLw.Bow@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article <C08sBA.Gp8@world.std.com> tob@world.std.com (Tom O Breton) writes:
>>Mikhail:
>>> What I find obnoxious is the linguistic games in which you feel compelled
>>> to indulge, whilst justifying your claim to the high moral ground of the
>>> humanity's benefactors.
>>
>>Pardon my jumping in, but it does not seem particularly obnoxious or
>>dishonest to me to have a short english word in front of ..Software
>>Foundation instead prepending the name with a long paragraph explaining a
>>host of details.
>
>Well said!  How about it, Michael... would you prefer the FSF called
>itself the...
>  
>  ...Free-to-users-but-not-free-to-would-be-profiteering-redistributers
>  Software Foundation?
>
    Also, pardon my jumping in, but this discussion is cluttering up
    this news group. Could you please move it to private mail, or
    something.  Kill files are really slow on this machine, and my
    time is of value.

    Thank you for your consideration.

-- 
Al - aclark@netcom.com - My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:10:44 GMT

In article <C08sBA.Gp8@world.std.com> tob@world.std.com (Tom O Breton) writes:
>Mikhail:
>> What I find obnoxious is the linguistic games in which you feel compelled
>> to indulge, whilst justifying your claim to the high moral ground of the
>> humanity's benefactors.
>
>Pardon my jumping in, but it does not seem particularly obnoxious or
>dishonest to me to have a short english word in front of ..Software
>Foundation instead prepending the name with a long paragraph explaining a
>host of details.

Well said!  How about it, Michael... would you prefer the FSF called
itself the...
  
  ...Free-to-users-but-not-free-to-would-be-profiteering-redistributers
  Software Foundation?

--
Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
Northampton, MA, USA
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4179 talk.philosophy.misc:3142 alt.usage.english:10233 alt.society.anarchy:1000
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 4 Jan 93 05:23:11 GMT
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.

In article <C0B34q.Ax0@news.udel.edu> johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>If you are complaining that the GPL does not grant you the right
>to "proprietary use of the source code", well, that's tough.  
>
>The only sense of the word "proprietary" that is applicable here
>would be "made and marketed by by one having the exclusive right
>to manufacture and sell" (Webster's 7th Collegiate).

That's just plain not true. One can not use the source code
in any way other than infecting it with the GPL; this is far
more limiting than preventing a programmer from using GPLed
code in a proprietary project. In particular, one cannot use
GPLed code in the least proprietary projects of all: public
domain software. This is a real restriction in the freedom
of a programmer who wants to use GNU software to the fullest;
I'll leave it to Mikhail and the rest of you to decide whether
this restriction is inconsistent with the use of the word "free".




-- 
Dave Eisen                               Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU              Home:                (415) 321-5154
       There's something in my library to offend everybody. 
          --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston)
Subject: Re: AT&T sells USL to Novell
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:42:56 GMT

In article <Bzrw43.8FF@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article <ISHIKAWA.92Dec24181912@ds5200.personal-media.co.jp> ishikawa@personal-media.co.jp writes:
>>According to a person who reads an article in a japanese newspaper,
>>AT&T will sell 77 % of the stock it owns of USL to Novell.  

>AT&T doesn't own 100% of USL stock now... only about 70% or so, I think.

The only thing that matters is that 77% of 70% => controlling interest.
-- 
-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4137 talk.philosophy.misc:3109 alt.usage.english:10207 alt.society.anarchy:980
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 4 Jan 1993 04:04:00 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>one has no billing.  Finding a better way to copyright and distribute 
>software and source code is a subject that many have talked about;
>the FSF (including "men" like Stallman for those who insist on 
>personalizing) have actually taken a public position and done
>their best to put their ideas into practice.  Few political action
>groups have so successfully worked both the theoretical and practical 
>sides of a difficult problem.
>
>If you have a better idea, please share it;  we're interested.

How about the way X is distributed?

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4144 talk.philosophy.misc:3112
From: tower@ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:05:25 GMT

   Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:47:34 GMT
   From: tob@world.std.com (Tom O Breton)

   Mikhail:
   
   > What I find obnoxious is the linguistic games in which you feel compelled
   > to indulge, whilst justifying your claim to the high moral ground of the
   > humanity's benefactors.
   
   Pardon my jumping in, but it does not seem particularly obnoxious or
   dishonest to me to have a short english word in front of ..Software
   Foundation instead prepending the name with a long paragraph explaining a
   host of details.
   
   The use of it is free, and that's what most people value, so I think "free"
   captures the spirit of this as well as any short common word can be expected
   to.
   
In retrospect, I wish we had name FSF the:
	Software Freedom Foundation
but it's way to late now.

enjoy -len

Member, League for Programming Freedom.  Ask: lpf@uunet.uu.net
From: mstankus@oba.ucsd.edu (Mark Stankus)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: How is Obj-C project coming?
Date: 25 Dec 92 20:25:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mathematics @ UCSD

Some time ago, there was a news item which said that FSF was going to
work on a objective-c compiler (whose objects were c++
compatible) and an interface builder
on X-windows. I have not heard anything sense.

What is the status of this project? I'd like to see a game plan if it
exits.

Also, is there a plan to put a GUI on top of the GNU
operating system (to be) ? Like the stuff the NeXT (no flames please) has.
In particular, there could be objects like a print panel,
a color wheel,...

Mark Stankus
-- 
mstankus
mstankus@oba 
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4165 talk.philosophy.misc:3130
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 3 Jan 93 21:52:46 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1993Jan3.195425.13436@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <C0ALHs.9yv@news.udel.edu> 
>johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

BJ:
>>>>Okay, I'll bite ... how would a pricing differential prevent FSF 
>>>>from using a "distribution fee" explanation, if that was indeed
>>>>the only way to "explain" a fee?   

MZ:
>>>Surely you can answer this question yourself.

BJ:
>>Businesses often offer similar products - or even the same 
>>product - at different prices to different customers.  There
>>is certainly no law (or even tradition) that dictates that 
>>products with the same cost of manufacture or distribution
>>must be sold for the same price to all customers.

KA:
>If things with the same cost of distribution are not being sold for the same
>price, in what sense is the price a "distribution fee"?  One would think that
>a distribution fee would have something to do with the cost of distribution....

Thanks for saving me the trouble, Ken.  It never ceases to amaze me,
just how far ostensibly literate people may be willing to go, in order
to gainsay the obvious.

>--
>"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
>On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
>    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
>[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
>   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
>
>Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4167 talk.philosophy.misc:3132 alt.usage.english:10223 alt.society.anarchy:993
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 3 Jan 93 22:18:44 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <C0Au59.C4n@mtholyoke.edu> 
jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

>In article <1993Jan2.221526.18943@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>The way I see it, the use of GNU places me under a legal obligation to
>>the FSF; on the other hand, as a certified misanthrope with no ready
>>ftp access, I have no way to obtain a copy for nothing.

JB:
>I know, this is the third or fourth article in this thread in which I'm
>saying the same thing, but then I'm still not anywhere near Michael's
>volume of repetitive rhetoric, so here goes...
>
>READ THE BLOODY LICENSE!
>
>"The use of GNU" does NOT place you under any legal obligation to
>anyone or anything.  Only the redistribution of GNU places you under
>legal obligations to the copyright holder, the FSF.

The use of GNU places me under a reciprocal obligation which limits
its usufruit, regardless of whether or not I ever exercise my physical
ability to do so.  I know that it may be hard to figure out, but feel
free to ask somebody in your philosophy department about the meaning
of obligation.

TOB:
>>>In any case, the CopyLeft license can be easily obtained and read (As I'm
>>>sure you have), so I can't believe anyone is truly misled.

MZ:
>>Consider a career as a copywriter; you have the right approach.  On
>>second thought, even that profession does not call for a small print
>>explanation that the "Care Free" menstrual pads will not *really* live
>>up to the insouciantly autarchic implications of their trade name.

JB:
>The above paragraph is apparently devoid of semantic content.  Equally
>apparent is that either Michael did not in fact read the GNU Public
>License, or he first translated it into a similarly content-free 
>intermediate representation.

May I suggest the alternative possibility, that you are
constitutionally incapable of understanding an English sentence
possessed of a subordinate clause?

>--
>Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
>Northampton, MA, USA

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 2 Jan 1993 01:54:34 -0800
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.uu.net

In article <1993Jan2.043903.18936@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>Your mission would be unexceptionable, and indeed laudable, were it
>not ineluctably involved with an attempt at a reprehensible semantic
>reform.  As it stands, your true mission is to self-servingly gloss
>the "Freedom is slavery" slogan of the Ministry of Truth.

The second ammendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right for the
public to keep and bear arms (well, it *tries* to).  This is a freedom to
bear guns.  This does not mean that the guns are free.

Someone leaving some form of incarceration might be heard to proclaim, "I am
free!"  There was a long-time movement to "Free Nelson Mandella!"  Does that
mean that the subject of each of those statements is available without
price?  Or even without restriction?  No.  Saying, "I am free!" means that
you are not captive, and that you are not prevented from some action.
Similarly with the software produced and owned by the FSF:  it is free, but
not free.  <<Liberte'>> au lieu de <<gratuit>>.

I personally don't see what the problem is.  "Free" *does* have more than
one definition in English.

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:38:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.221526.18943@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>[...] on the other hand, as a certified misanthrope with no ready
>ftp access, I have no way to obtain a copy for nothing.

*bzzzt*... wrong!  You obviously have /some/ kind of network access, or
you couldn't be posting your never-ending stream of misanthropic rhetoric.
Given that you apparently have an e-mail address you can obtain GNU software
"for nothing" via your friendly Internet e-mail<->FTP gateway.

Now, if you claim that that's still not "free" because you have to pay
some kind of network access fee, or whatever, I would have to point out
that you'd also have to pay for a blank tape, or bus fare, or postage,
or whatever to obtain GNU software by /any/ means unless you expect the
FSF to pay for a tape, make it for you, and deliver it to your residence
at not charge.  If /that's/ the definition of "free" you require, good
luck in life...

--
Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
Northampton, MA, USA
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi (Leonard Norrgard)
Subject: Re: AT&T sells USL to Novell
Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 12:15:50 GMT

Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu) wrote:
> Another tidbit for those of you who spent the last few 
> weeks fretting about Apple Computer's bid to buy Novell:  
> CNN just reported that AT&T has sold USL to Novell.
> 
> There was no mention of the on-going litigation USL vs.
> BSD/386 and UC Berkeley, or of Apple's interest in Novell.
> -- 
> -- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
> -- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949

Well, according to the newsbytes report in clari.nb.unix, AT&T and
Novell have sofar signed a letter of intent, so it is not "sold" just
yet.  Both parties hope to close the deal in first quarter 1993.

-- Leonard
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
Subject: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:16:10 GMT

There seem to be many people who use GNU software but have never read
what the purpose of it is.  Misunderstandings are widespread.

The word "free" in our name pertains to freedom, not price.  The
purpose of the GNU project is to give users two specific freedoms:
first, the freedom to copy the program and distribute it; and second,
the freedom to change the program as you wish, by having full access
to source code.

Low price distribution is not part of this purpose.  You may get a
copy of GNU software at a high price, or a low price (even
zero)--either way is ok.  The freedom to redistribute will tend to
discourage extremely high prices, which is nice, but secondary.

It's understandable that if people think the purpose of GNU is to have
a low price, they might be disturbed to learn that we don't have low
prices.  But that was never our aim.

The FSF distributes CD-ROMS, like tapes, primarily for the purpose of
raising funds to pay programmers and tech writers to develop more of
the GNU system.  Naturally we charge enough to bring in a considerable
amount of margin.  Our mission is to increase the amount of free
software available to a user, and we can do more if we take advantage
of the opportunity to raise money when we distribute.  Most of the
FSF's funds come from distribution; they always have.

However, it is inaccurate to describe this as "profit".  If you look
at just the FSF's distribution activity, it produces a surplus.  The
FSF spends this surplus paying people to write software for you to
use.  If you look at the FSF as a whole, it does not make a profit.

We may have contributed to the misunderstanding by using the phrase
"distribution fee" in the CD announcement, because that does imply
something about the size of the fee, and that is not what we meant to
say.  We should have said, "a fee for distribution."  What this means
is that people pay for the distribution--not, as usual, for the right
to use the program.  (In the case of GNU software, everyone has the
right to use it, and nobody ever has to pay for that.)

If you'd like us to develop more software, I hope you will order some
CDs or tapes and thus help us pay more programmers.  80 CDs, ordered
at the company price, will support one programmer for a year.
From: ishikawa@personal-media.co.jp (Chiaki Ishikawa)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: AT&T sells USL to Novell
Date: 24 Dec 92 09:19:12 GMT
Reply-To: ishikawa@personal-media.co.jp
Organization: Personal Media Corp., Tokyo Japan
In-reply-to: vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi's message of 22 Dec 92 12:15:50 GMT
X-Md4-Signature: 3416fc7c4d2575036186d765a08b907a


According to a person who reads an article in a japanese newspaper,
AT&T will sell 77 % of the stock it owns of USL to Novell.  So AT&T
will probably be a big shareholder still (23%?).

In any case, does anyone have any idea what Novell will do U**X as we
know it? Will it be a better Novell file server ? :-)

In terms of PC (I mean Intel x86 architecture machines), this is a
good thing since I am quite suire Novell has better handle on
marketing in competitive PC market than USL or AT&T has.

On the other hand, on workstation side (I mean SUN, and other
workstatins), this sales to Novell makes whale of questions
unanswered.

Suddenly, Solaris (SunOS/SysVR4) doesn't look glittering in my eyes
anymore. 

What will USL do to keep U**X at the cutting edge of emerging
technology?


 Chiaki Ishikawa,  Personal Media Corp.,  MY Bldg, 1-7-7 Hiratsuka,
 Shinagawa, Tokyo 142, JAPAN. FAX:+81-3-5702-0359, Phone:+81-3-5702-0351
 UUNET: ishikawa@personal-media.co.jp
From: lorim@informix.com (Lori Malczyk)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: looking for ghostscript source
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:04:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Originator: lorim@godzilla

Can someone tell me where an ftp archive site for ghostscript is?
I need a version that will run on our Sun SparcI/II systems.

Lori Malczyk
Portland, OR
lorim@informix.com 
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4184 talk.philosophy.misc:3144 alt.society.anarchy:1002 alt.usage.english:10235