Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Diego Biurrun <diego@biurrun.de> wrote:
> 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.
Then my guess would be that LinuxTag can fill the rooms with people
interested in Linux-related topics without having to shell out speaker
fees. Which doesn't say that some of the speakers, perhaps even
yourself, couldn't earn speaker fees elsewhere if they tried. If a
public figure as remarkable as RMS does not choose to gather sizable
donations to his preferred charity in return for his speaking
engagements, then perhaps conference organizers should be prepared for
the eccentric behavior that is occasionally reported.
> > 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
> you.
Still far from slander; but I confess that I regretted this
immediately, and was relieved to be able to find enough public
evidence in a matter of a couple of hours to refute my own
speculation, at least as regards the FSF. Treading carefully does
not, if I may say so, seem to be _your_ specialty.
> Speaking of (real) saints: Mother Teresa accepted donations directly and
> passed them on. There is nothing unethical in that.
Not in the least. It would only be (somewhat) unethical if a large
fraction of the donations wound up back in one's own pocket; and that
doesn't seem to be the case with RMS.
> > > 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
> affairs.
It's really interesting that people who show no evidence of having
invested any effort whatsoever themselves in research of any aspect of
this topic are so quick to reject, not only the slightest speculation
beyond the proven facts, but any evidence I may have brought to bear
on any conclusion distasteful to them. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
- Michael
Reply to: