Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 01:40:42PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> 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").
That would again be news to me. I've just given two talks at LinuxTag
(the biggest Linux-related event in Europe) and all I got was two nights
in a hotel room. That's what all the speakers get, some do get part of
or all of their travel expenses covered, but no more than that.
> 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.
You're again bordering on slander, I'd tread more carefully if I were
Speaking of (real) saints: Mother Teresa accepted donations directly and
passed them on. There is nothing unethical in that.
> > 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.
And I judge your evidence poorly researched. This does not enhance your
credibility when you expound at length (and length and length) on legal