Re: Suggestion: remove s/sco[45].h etc.

[David Kastrup]

address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> Eric Hanchrow <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > I agree with Kastrup and Lemon -- if SCO is worse than other
> > developers of proprietary systems, it is only in degree, not in
> > kind,
> 
> I don't think any of the other developers have gone as far as
> questioned the legality of the GPL -- even claiming it to be
> non-constitutional.

Oh come on.  Microsoft has called it against the values of the
American constitution or society or some stuff like that.
Repeatedly.  And I can't count the number of times communism has been
brought up by them.

They might not have gone all the way that the current suicide mission
of SCO permits: those at the helm can't lose: all their hype and talk
is putting them into the headlines and thus is driving the stock
market value up artificially and the key players will have sold out
long before the company crashes.

> I agree that M$ is trying its best to bad-mouth the free and open
> software movements.  However, (except for the recent "dontation" to
> SCO) I don't think they have gone as far as SCO.

Well, they are not on a Kamikaze spree, that's all.

> > and Emacs already supports lots of non-free systems.  I doubt that
> > denying SCO customers the latest Emacs will further the cause of
> > software freedom.
> 
> I agree, it is a concern that my proposed move isn't friendly to SCO
> users, nor does it promote the use of free software on SCO
> platforms.
> 
> The reason for my question is that there have been recent bug
> reports (admittedly with fixes) for SCO-specific problems.
> 
> Personally, I don't want to spend any time on fixing such problems,
> but others may feel differently.

It is fine with me if you don't feel like spending any time to fix
such problems.  In fact, I would not either.  But you were proposing
instead spending time on sabotaging the usability of Emacs on SCO
platforms completely.  And I object to that.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum