Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- raya's research on "The Four Freedoms"

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > From that day on, he set off on a quest to ban proprietary software
> > and encourage the free sharing of source code by all means.
> 
> That was what started his unrest.  It did not set him off immediately,
> and "by all means" is certainly exaggerated.  He did not, for example,
> condone using guns in that respect.

Not yet. But I won't be surprised to hear something like that from your 
fellow lunatic who is incapable to distinguish rights-reserved software 
from human slavery. But anyway, here's good example of "by all means":

-----------------------------------8<-----------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:59:32 -0700 (MST)
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: s337240@student.uq.edu.au
Subject: Re: java backend

If it is possible to compile languages such as C into Java byte codes,
I see a great danger.  The danger is that people will use Java byte
codes to hook GCC up to proprietary back ends and proprietary front
ends.  They could also generate Java byte codes, run a proprietary
optimizer, and feed the result back into GCC.  In effect, the support
for Java byte codes would undermine the goals of the GPL.

If your changes really do make such activities much easier, more
feasible in practice, then I think it would have been better if you
had never implemented the feature.  And now it would be better now if
you take these changes off your web site, and don't mention that they
exist.  Of course, someone else really determined could redo the work,
the extra burden of doing so might dissuade people from trying.
-----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- 

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00895.html
(java bytecode considered bad)

regards,
alexander.