[LUAU] s/hosef.ics.hawaii.edu/mirrors.hosef.org/g

[Jim Thompson]

Jimen,

Eben Moglen has participated in a great many technical discussions.   
Its part of his vocation (job) and avocation (the thing he loves).

Scott didn't say "LUAU = HOSEF; HOSEF = LUAU;", I did.

I did not create HOSEF.  While Scott had a great deal to do with  
creating HOSEF, he was not its sole creator.  (The record shows that  
it was Warren who came up with the name.  Twice.)
For the record, Scott isn't even a board member (director) of HOSEF.   
Your fears and statements are both unfounded and untrue.  I formally  
ask that you withdraw them.

I never said that I (or anyone, including "HOSEF", the organization)  
"ows" LUAU.  Neither group is above the other, though it is (quite)  
convenient
for the 503(c) (HOSEF) to operate the machine where the LUAU list (as  
well as many other resources) is hosted, for a number of reasons,  
some covered on this thread.

Rather than what you imply, or perhaps infer, what I said was that  
they are the same people, with largely similar goals.
The fact that you are confused while many others here are not is of  
vital import to understanding what has happened.

Finally, in order to steer this back to a topic we can all engage in,  
"Free Software" is expressly *NOT* about creation of source code and  
the sharing of this source code.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,  
distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,  
it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your  
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor  
(freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to  
the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access  
to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.  As  
you can see, access to source code is necessary but not sufficient  
for a program to be Free Software.

"Open Source" is a marketing effort.  (ESR will admit to this.)  It  
is (was?) an attempt to make Free Software "safe for business"(*).   
It does this by choosing to not talk about Freedom, but instead, to  
talk about a development model where source code is freely shared.    
Your statement is almost an accurate description of "Open Source",  
but not of Free Software.

As the primary author of a GPLed program, you need to be aware of  
this.  I refer you to http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free- 
software-for-freedom.html for further prose on the subject.

Jim

(*) the evidence shows that it has failed.  In failing, it has  
wandered off into the soup of "license proliferation", and become  
largely irrelevant.    OSI can't even be bothered to update its own  
website, and now the very phrase "Open Source" has become a tool in  
the hands of Microsoft.

"Its dead, Jim."  (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/20/ 
eben_moglen_on_microsoft_novell/page2.html)