> I don't suppose anyone caught Stallman's response in the 3/24 issue of
> Business Week, to the Linux article published on 3/3?
He said the same thing to Leo Laporte last Fall. In the same interview, he
added that songs could not be owned because they are creative acts like
programs, althought the performance of a song could be owned. In other
words, lyrics and score should be considered public, but not the
performance.
There were a lot of people who came before Stallman who contributed open
source software. Of course, we called it Public Domain. It was Stallman
who proposed the idea that copyright was evil, and therefore a copyright
should be used to ensure that no one could take the public work, change it,
and copyright it (the so-called copyleft).
People and places like SIMTEL, Frank Wancho, Ward Christensen, Randy Seuss,
and more others than I can possibly remember right now (at least without
getting seriously nostalgic) don't get the credit from relative newcomers
that ought to be their due.
> In 1992, when GNU was nearly complete, Linus Torvalds released
> a free program that fit the last major gap.
You'd think that Stallman's ego wouldn't require him to marginalize
Torvald's work to boost his own.
> What is certainly somewhat 'amusing' to us, in the same way Iraq's
> minister of information's statements were 'amusing', aren't exactly
> veiled in mystery.
Well now ... that's certainly a unique view of Richard Stallman. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
