Subject: Re: Communities as the new IPR?
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:20:00 +0900

>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Thompson <> writes:

    Jim> Doesn't have to be *on* to represent the
    Jim> mindset of (some of) its directors, now does it?

Mindset?  So you're just talking about the fact that a lot of people
have long had strong disagreements with rms on any number of matters,
including licensing---and that several OSI board members are among

I thought you had some specific new tactic in mind.

    Jim> (And yes, I know that RMS screwed the pooch on xemacs.)

If you're talking about the Lemacs fork, as a matter of fact, he
didn't.  There was no "win-win" there as far as I can tell, given my
understanding of rms's value system.[1]

Both sides should have been _much_ more polite, but the outcome would
not have been affected.

And the GPL had nothing to do with the split, except that it enabled
Gabriel to bet the company on Emacs in the first place.  The GPL, and
assignment of Lucid code back to the FSF, was an essential part of the
Lucid business strategy as I understand it.

[1]  Yes, I've argued otherwise in the past.  That's because I didn't
understand rms's value system.  I now realize that I don't disagree
with rms's strategy in the fork, only with the values that drove him
to those decisions.

School of Systems and Information Engineering
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.