On Jan 3, 2008 3:20 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In fact many of the people did expect this when you favorite > organization lost the battle publically on Reyk's code that your > friends stole and tried to impose your license on it, and when they > even tried vainly to go legal by the advice of a un-educated american > lawyer but finally foun that they have just embarrassed themselves in > public. > > I don't know who or what that refers to. I do know that my favorite > organization is the Free Softwar Foundation, and I know it has not > been involved in anything that fits that description. > > I suspect this is related to the harsh message Theo sent me a few > months ago, which rebuked what "you" (was that me? the FSF?) had done. > He mentioned the name "Reyk" (which I don't recognize) >
Being Concerned about free software you should recognize him ( unless you deliberately want to lie or pretend ignorance ) because his contribution for the **really free software** is not that negligible. If you really don't please do ask your demon to wget "http://team.vantronix.net/~reyk/"; and be better informed because you are participating in interviews and making false statements which a person of your stature should NEVER have done. The injustice your friends were trying to do to him was not trivial and your silence and pretending ignorance at that crucial hour was "classic" especially when you claimed to be a Free Software Zealot. Even there the injustice was evident when your folks destroyed the reputation in public of another developer who made a mistake and did not deliberately steal code and arbitrarily changed license like **some** of the linux devs. >and said it had > something to do with a license. But he did not go into details. > The FSF was not involved in the matter. > That was your political position. Do you think the rest of the world believes it? I happened to go to a FOSS meeting 2yrs back and I heard people speaking "you can see RMS coming to a mailing list just for politics." I see that in reality in misc<@>openbsd now > I could have investigated what he was talking about and determined > what conduct he had criticized. Then, supposing I wanted to give them > some advice, I could have asked someone to find the developers' > addresses, and written to them. Then they might or might not have > listened to me. > You could have! You would have if you were not a Hippocrite! But you DID NOT!!! You claimed ignorance there too. Do you think the rest of the world believes you any more though you try to make politically correct statementsand pretend ignorance when you have nothing more to say to justify your position? > I could have done all that, but I saw no reason to go so far out of my > way for someone who was treating me rather badly. So I simply told > him that the FSF was not involved in the matter. > When people tell the truth it is quite easy to think they are acting badly to you especially when you have guilt in you. So you say your Commitment to "Free Software" and respect for "copyright laws" end the moment you feel somebody is not treating you the way you expect them to? > I know that one part of your description events is wrong--the part > that says, that my "favorite organization" has "lost the battle > [publicly]". My favorite organization, the FSF, was not involved. If > any of "my friends" were involved, they did not inform me. > Good friends you have then. Be careful about them. Of course Brutus is an honorable man......... > Those errors make me skeptical of the rest of your claims. Did > someone lose a battle? > Yes! a bunch of linux developers with the backup of a lawyer who either didn't know the copyright law, or thought he could twist it to his interpretation and get away with it, lost the battle in public. To tell you the fact they lost even before the game began, understanding their folly they backed out from their mischief. So they lost the battle even before it reached a court of law!!! >Did anyone really "steal" anything? I don't > know, but I won't take your word for it. > Don't take my word for it. Your Demon and wget can help you. Easier with firefox or even IE. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223&w=2 >From what I learn http://directory.fsf.org/project/Windows32API/ http://directory.fsf.org/project/wxwindows/ http://wxwindows.org/about/credits.htm see the acknowledgment from one of the softwares endorsed by FSF your favourite organization. ========================================================================================================== Thank you to Microsoft for donating a copy of Visual C++ 6.0 to help wxWidgets compile on this version of the compiler (for a Virginia Tech course). ========================================================================================================== The developers of software you recommend use proprietary software and you have no qualms about that! But you are utterlly shocked that there are a few URLs in the OpenBSD ports system that point to non-free softwares (and of course warns the users that those softwares are non free ) and you interpret that "OpenBSD is non-free and encourages use of non-free software". Reminds me of the spin you accuse others of! >Did they "try to go legal"? > They would have tried if they did not understand the utter stupidity of their actions some time later. Below is an example of a linux developer taunting a BSD Project leader asking him to learn the copyright law because he thought he knew it better than the BSD developer http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118867816914204&w=2 Do you want to know who made this statement? =================================================== Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of attorneys watching their backs. =================================================== ask your Demon wget friends to get http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118869060826841&w=2 for you. Your answer now may be that "FSF's position is that attorneys could be put to use for diverse exercises not limited to the legal system"" > If so, was it "vainly"? If they got legal advice, was their lawyer > "un-educated"? Was the outcome embarrassing for someone? I don't > know. > Well I can answer these questions as well. but the links above answers some of them in part. But since I know you are pretending like a cat who closes its eyes and drink milk thinking that nobody sees it I won't take the pains to do that today > Whoever would like to know the answers to these questions would do > well to check on his own. > No need! if anybody like to know please mail me I will help you get the truth from public mailinglists. --Siju
