Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
- From: "Michael K. Edwards" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:40:42 -0700
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: M.K.Edwards@gmail.com
- In-reply-to: <20050802160856.GC3542@localhost.localdomain>
- References: <D983A82B2EE1D211BED00008C7330586079F7DE9@almg-nt9.almg.uucp> <1122484029.4133.54.camel@laptop1> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1122499014.4133.135.camel@laptop1> <email@example.com> <20050802160856.GC3542@localhost.localdomain>
On 8/2/05, Diego Biurrun <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> That RMS gets paid for all the speeches he gives would indeed be news.
> I have first-hand knowledge that he follows invitations to speak about
> free software when provided free travel and lodging.
Do you know the numbers? As I wrote, I don't. For all I know, RMS
never solicits or accepts a speaker fee -- although if so he would be
quite extraordinary among conference speakers, even among speakers on
free software topics. I believe the typical conference speaker's fee
in this area is in the $5K-$20K range (compare
http://www.speaking.com/speakerindexes/internet.html ), often more for
futurists (several $50K and up speakers at
http://www.speaking.com/speakerindexes/future.html ) and actual
celebrities with drawing power (usually reported simply as "rumored
six-figure speaker fee"). There's a lot of money to be made in this
area (although it's a pretty hard life if you have close friends and
like your home); and if RMS had a way of laundering the money ("don't
give it to me; but donate to the FSF if you like") so as to appear
saintly, he wouldn't be the first.
> Your claims are slanderous. I would suggest you to research better
> before making claims with such serious implications.
I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
is notoriously unforthcoming about their financial dealings, and the
cash flows involved are not chump change (see the numbers disclosed by
Jamie Zawinski in the Lucid Emacs saga). Whether or not you think RMS
and Eben Moglen are cashing in personally (about which I have no
evidence), if you are willing to take their uncorroborated claims
about the legal strategy at the heart of their enterprise at face
value, you are a more trusting man than I.