---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Logan Streondj <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
To: Will Hill <email@example.com
>On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 01:27:05AM -0500, Will Hill wrote:
> You might remember the "RMS is a sexist" fiasco, where all sorts of articles
> poured out misrepresenting the Virgin of Emacs as the thing it parodies.
> That's a minor but nasty example.
any pseudo-celebrity could expect that kind of reaction for such
statements, especially when the community only has 3% females.
It begs an explanation, people may be quick to jump on a simple
> Software owners are constantly staging
> these things while their advertising and other messages are completely
> This is a systematic thing and your question has encouraged me to finish up a
> few essays I've been working on. Some suggested reading includes,
I guess that is an example of one company (Microsoft), who
doesn't like libreware. they have a pretty bad track record in
general for someone that abuses their power, in many domains.
though you said software-owners plural, so I'm wondering who
these alleged others are.
If it's just Microsoft, then I'd say it's more of a "single
actor" rather than some kind of "pattern".
so far all the publishers you've linked to seem to also be
supportive of libreware, and disliking of Microsofts behaviour.
> On Friday 22 May 2015, firstname.lastname@example.org
> > will hill" easy to observe pattern of publishers missrepresenting GNU
> > and the FSF by all means at their disposal"
> > examples?