From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 20 20:36:37 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED8B37B407 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 20:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grelber.thyrsus.com (dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.53.140]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992D343FAF for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 20:36:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from esr@snark.thyrsus.com) Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h4L3aZkx031146; Tue, 20 May 2003 23:36:35 -0400 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h4L3R26o032212; Tue, 20 May 2003 23:27:02 -0400 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h4L3R1uG032210; Tue, 20 May 2003 23:27:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 23:27:01 -0400 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Gary W. Swearingen" Message-ID: <20030521032701.GB32155@thyrsus.com> References: <20030520203225.GA30587@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fwd: ESR/OSI's Unix/Linux-history-laden treatise on SCO vs. IBM X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 03:36:38 -0000 Gary W. Swearingen : > First let me say that I was sorry, after posting my typically-critical > comments, that I had not commented on more of the good things about the > treatise, beyond recommending it as interesting. No offense taken. > > This supposed "copyleftic whopper" is something I have observed in > > most of my peers since 1982, long before copyleft was invented. > > And that was great; but then Stallman came along an convinced too many > people to replace "all licit purposes" with "open-source-only purposes", > effectively replacing the GIFT of a license to derive with a > FEE-LICENSING contract, with payment in the form of a cross-license of > the deriver's own source code. It's fine for us to argue about among ourselves. But from the point of view of any outsider, you're engaging in a theological dispute of *zero* interest. I am therefore ignoring this distinction, very deliberately. > Of course, if the treatise is going to be aimed at courts. But it sure > didn't look like it WAS. It seemed way too coversational (?) for that. > ("pure nostalgia trip"; "brazen mendacity"; "insult our competence"; > "When OSDL spun up"; " is false and insulting. It is also dishonest."; > "They know better."; "SCO's 10Ks"; etc.) Even I wouldn't dare include > my pot-shot (more of a broadside?) at the courts, if writing for them, > but I wouldn't be so "entertaining", either. Which is one way of observing that you're not as skilled a propagandist as I am. Trust me on this. I've had practice :-). Anyway, my wife is a practicing Phildelphia lawyer who went over the text line by line. She told me to be *more* aggressive. > In any case, you've done a lot better job than I ever could or would do. > Thanks for doing it as well as you have; it showed LOTS of work. You're welcome. -- Eric S. Raymond