In message <bd2d1d84-6090-4898-b7c2-59167fc8e...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Nick Keighley wrote:
> On 16 July, 09:24, Mark Tarver <dr.mtar...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >> On 15 July, 23:21, bolega <gnuist...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html >> >> > RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 30 October 1986 > > did you really have to post all of this... > > <snip> > >> > read more »... > > ...oh sorry only about a third of it... Still totally unnecessary, though. >> Perhaps as an antidote >> >> http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-to-stallmans-story-about-the-formation-of-symbolics-and-lmi In other words, software that was developed at Symbolics was not given way for free to LMI. Is that so surprising? Which is conceding Stallman’s point. Anyway, that wasn’t Symbolics’s “plan”; it was part of the MIT licensing agreement, the very same one that LMI signed. LMI’s changes were all proprietary to LMI, too. I don’t understand this bit. The only “MIT licensing agreement” I’m aware off _allows_ you to redistribute your copies without the source, but doesn’t _require_ it. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
