[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib

On 8/6/05, Diego Biurrun <diego@biurrun.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 01:15:22AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > It's controversial to say that RMS is occasionally reported to behave
> > eccentrically?  And that being a conference speaker doesn't
> > necessarily stop him?
> No.  But this is not what you are implying in the paragraph above.  You
> imply that he takes the liberty to misbehave due to the fact that he
> does not get money for his speaking engagements.  This is controversial
> and what is worse, you have (again) no facts to back it up.

So you're saying that knowing that his charity's donation is riding on
his conduct would not make him feel any more inclined to comport
himself with dignity?  Now who's being insulting?

> > Try the CODE conference in 2001, reported at
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/06/free_software_would_have_prevented/
> You're not seriously presenting this polemic diatribe as fact here,
> are you?

Polemic diatribe?  Bill Thompson is a regular BBC correspondent,
generally sympathetic to Free Software, opponent of software patents (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3782771.stm ), hardly my idea of
an anti-RMS ideologue.  Hundreds of people were at that conference,
including (as I wrote in the part you snipped) Bruce Perens, who could
be asked about his recollection of the event -- if you really think
there is anything to dispute; even the most sympathetic of RMS
biographers usually mention that he sometimes flies off the handle
when opposed on an "ethical" point.  I'm something of a hot-head
myself, but then I don't go around inviting critiques of my moral
perspective from conference podiums, do I?

[snip more flaming, except:]
> In my legislation you cross the border to slander/libel with these
> things at some point.

I'd like to see you back that up.  I'm fortunate to live in a country
where it's pretty hard to prove libel against someone who's looking
for the truth about a public figure, especially if it's clear that
he's not motivated by personal malice.  If you are incapable of
judging those distinctions when you have an allegiance to that public
figure, that's not my problem.

- Michael

Reply to: