Re: [Fsfe-uk] Stalls at Marxism 2003

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Alex,

> To be honest, I don't really know all that much about the O'Reilly
> situation. However, the works on gnu.org are licensed as they are
> licensed. If people were being put off making use of their ability to
> make use of those works, I think I would be dismayed. But, I'm not
> clear that it is happening - and generally speaking, RMS doesn't get
> quoted particularly accurately.

It was me that introduced this issue to this Fsfe-uk list, and I read
Tim O'Reilly's emails first-hand on the address@hidden list.  He's
stated it at least twice there, several weeks apart.  I'd give links to
the archives but they seem hard to search, even with Google.

I'm 100% certain that Tim's stated RMS requested Tim not to publish GNU
software manuals, and that the reason was their sale was a significant
income stream for GNU/FSF.

IIRC, Tim thought this was hypocritical given RMS's public stance.

Hope that clears up what I'm certain of, and what I'm hazy on.

> I would be genuinely surprised if it was the case that he was putting
> people off using that material. If he did ask O'Reilly not to publish
> it, I would guess that there would be very good reasons - and I
> certainly don't think he would take any action (such as attempting to
> change the licensing conditions) even if they did.

I've not suggested RMS would change the licence if Tim was to publish.
But all RMS has to do is publicise he's not happy with Tim publishing
for some reason, e.g. less funds reaching GNU/FSF, and that's bad
publicity for O'Reilly which ORA wouldn't want.

Cheers,


Ralph.