Re: [tlug] [OT] Say _no_ to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

david.blomberg@example.com writes:

 > the like part is particularly [Stallman's] and very funny from
 > where I sit.

Hm.  TLUGgers, d'y'all like to share, or what?

 > Mid-westerners don't get a philosophy? ;)

I'm feeling very bipolar today.  *shrug*

 > Maybe I just deal with too many hucksters.  My viewpoint is that people
 > (business esp) will do the minimum requirement and no more.  As for

Sure.  So what?  If you want compensation for your work, I have no
problem with that.  I don't care if you use an appropriate non-free
license, such as a Creative Commons No-Commercial-Use or the Aladdin
Free[sic] Public License.  Or a full-blown closed proprietary license.
It's your choice.

If your interest is in getting the company to make a contribution to
society through your software, every customer they get that you
wouldn't have reached yourself is such a contribution.[1]  The fact
that the company also makes a profit is gravy on the social meatloaf.

 > Stallman he may have done a lot of good for those of us that use GPL
 > style-If he had his way the license would be much different and extreme.

You are seriously confused if you think that before Stallman's brain
death (comments in the XEmacs sources notwithstanding, there's life in
that old bag of jelly yet) anything he doesn't approve of will get
into a published version of the GPL.  Stallman listens to the opinions
and expertise of others, and occasionally even hears them ;-), but he
decides.

 > I try to stick to LGPL libs. For this I do think Stallman is out of
 > whack on this stance.  

I also disagree with him but it is painfully obvious that most free
software advocates (as opposed to "open source" types) agree with him.


Footnotes: 
[1]  This is true Mentat computation, Herr Baron.  Are you surprised?