In article <1v84v2INNt41@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> kem@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) writes:

   In article <BURLEY.93Jun10113744@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, burley@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes:
   |> In article <1v7b12INNk5k@rave.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
   |> 
   |>    Corporations will not pay to develop "free" software.
   |> 
   |> False.  How do you think a substantial portion of GNU C was developed?
   |> 
   |>    Government will not pay to develop "free" software.
   |> 
   |> False.  Would you care to hazard a guess as to what percentage of PD
   |> software currently available was funded by the US government?
   |> 
   |>    Colleges & Universities will only pay to develop
   |>    free software to the extent that it is part of a research project.
   |> 
   |> False.  Or do you consider X to be a "research project" only?
   |> 
   |> You ought to actually try learning something before posting this blather
   |> on USENET and wasting resources, especially those that many other people
   |> pay for.

   Craig "Mr Flame" Burly shows up at comp.os.linux to start another flame war.
   You might try actually posting something useful and intelligent to contribute
   to the ideas being discussed instead of blathering flameage, but then
   you won't listen.

Please spell my name correctly.  And please let everyone know all the
other flame ways I've started, or apologize for lying about my USENET
history.  And, while you're at it, I suggest you find someone else
who has publicly called me "Mr. Flame" or apologize for that, because
I have a living to earn as an independent consultant and statements
like yours, made in public, are unfair and uncalled-for attacks on my
character and reputation, and thus threaten my ability to earn an income.

   X is not under GPL, and DEC would never have paid to develop it under a GPL.
   Corporations have little interst in GPL.  They /do/ have some interest in
   really-free software, in that it can create standards that benefit them.

NeXT.  HP.  DG.  Lucid (I think).  These are companies that have funded
development of GPL-protected software.

Now, please look at the original post to which I responded, and look
at my response, and say where I went wrong.

   The government does fund development of "free" software, but try to get a
   government grant to fund development of a Lotus clone, or a new WSIWIG word
   processor.  The government supports attempts at new ideas, not copying of old ones.
   (The exception being defining of standards)

I didn't realize the discussion was about writing Lotus clones or
WYSIWYG word processors -- I thought it was about whether writing
free software is something that cannot possibly be done with funding
from corporations or the government.

My only concern in this new flamefest is to put the lie to statements
such as "corporations will not pay to develop free software".  People
who say such things are wrong, and wasting net.resources to say them
when they can be trivially found to be wrong is, IMHO, really a sad
thing.  There are many counterexamples, and I know of only a few
(being someone who does not work actively in that area of the industry
at the moment).

I also find it highly amusing that, because I find the GPL to be
effective, I get to endure childish attacks like your "Mr Flame"
despite having spent over two and a half years as a volunteer writing
free software that will benefit many people.  But I've long since
learned that doing good doesn't mean everyone treats you well.
Just the good people.
--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF) lpf@uunet.uu.net