Re: Stalls at Marxism 2003

Lets look at some practical implications of excercising freedom to buy 
from anywhere, wrongly...

One can buy ORA published books through '1-click' ordering at Amazon. 
Quite inefficiently too....
Just refer to this atrocity!
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565921526/ref=ase_deloriesoftware/103-3395356-4765432>

I believe this (the discontinued 'Learning GNU Emacs') is a 1996 edition.

Contrast it with [emacswiki.org] or GNUpress's offering  of GNU Emacs 
manual.

Surely this is incompetence in the part of huge monolithic distribtuion 
mechanisms as opposed to the dynamic modern and morally just  
distribution mechanism GNU aspires for.

Not  everyone can take the documentation task into their own hands and 
manage it effectively but GNU definitely makes a good attempt at it.
All the best to them.

I hope ayone sensible will buy any books straight from the source of the 
technology being documented hence encouraging more ventures like this.

Ralph Corderoy wrote:

>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 fsb <at> crynwr.com 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.
>
I think if Tim O'Reilly agrees privately to a request from another busy 
person like RMS who has to wear many different hats (as project leader, 
package maintainer and 'figurehead') and then publicises it in a such an 
ireesponsible  way that it causes haziness on matters that are so 
important .... this is very bad.

An honest businessman is who will turn down the request and publish the 
free documentation alongside all the non free documentation like 'how to 
do what with a Win2000 whatever' and mind the bank balance than pretend 
to worry  future *software* directions.

Is it not amazing how Tim O'Reilly is able to wield so much control over 
software development directions? (assuming everyone agrees that 
documentation is a vital part of any software)

>
>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,
>
Are you not aware of the patent issues with Amazon and Tim doing 
business with them?
There is ample publicity on RMS stance on this (still available online)...
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon-rms-tim.html>

I do not think anyone should give publicity to every move they make in 
their life.
*If* funds for GNU/FSF is also an issue I do not think that has to come 
out with equal publicity.

> and that's bad
>publicity for O'Reilly which ORA wouldn't want.
>  
>

Regards,

Ramanan