Richard Stallman

[Brett Glass]

Plato (tom at redant.freeserve.co.uk) writes:

>Could you give me URLs to one or more of these essays?

Last time I looked, they were all on Stallman's gnu.org site, in 
the "Philosophy" section. Unless, of course, he has expunged them
to hide his true intentions.

>> Software is "proprietary" if it does not interoperate with other software,
>> does not conform to industry standards, and/or uses unique file formats 
>> or protocols so as to lock users in or deter competition.
>
>That is not true.  In English, `propritetary' is an adjective used to describe
>something which is the property of someone.  

If you were to use this definition, then all of the FSF's software would
be "proprietary." (It is interesting that the FSF condemns software "hoarding"
and yet has one of the largest hoards of source code in the world.)

>In the computing world it is
>generally used to describe software which does not allow redistribution and
>modification.

Not true. This is the way the FSF has attempted to REdefine it, but it
is not the correct definition.

>Again not true.  Commercial software need not be *licensed* for money, it
>only need be developed or marketed as a way of business.

For something to be commercial, it must be the object of commerce.

>Did you read the links I posted?  I post them again and suggest you do so
>before posting erroneous comments.  How can you hope to win an argument when
>you do not understand the issues involved?
>
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-libre-commercial-viability.html

I have studied Stallman's propaganda at great length, and have written
essays on the misleading rhetorical techniques it uses. I not only
understand the issues involved; I also understand how Stallman has attempted
to distort them and mislead programmers into hurting themselves, their
profession, and their projects. 

--Brett