[Oberon] Introduce myself (on "public domain")

[oberon at x.colbyrussell.com]

On 2/22/19 9:24 AM, John R. Strohm wrote:
 > Colby, Liam's language is correct, as far as it goes.

No, that's (verifiably) untrue.  Copyleft (reciprocity) is not a
prerequisite for a license to be considered a free software license.

I repeat myself: permissive licenses such as Apache 2.0 and the
incarnations that the BSDs are using in 2019 are free software licenses.
That's true.  This isn't a victim of equivocation, because I'm using
Stallman's definition.

(Incidentally, the Project Oberon license that Wirth et al have chosen
is for the same reasons *also* a free software license.)

 > You really should familiarize yourself with the Free Software body of
 > knowledge, and WHY Stallman et al insisted on doing it the way they did.

I'm incredibly familiar with this topic.

I suggest, instead, that maybe you post to the GNU/FSF mailing lists, or
perhaps write to RMS himself--he's accessible, and responds to emails,
although sometimes he's got a big backlog--and they can point you to the
volumes of written and spoken word on this topic that contradicts what
you're trying to say here.

I don't know what I'm more annoyed by: the FSF's detractors who haven't
done their research and promulgate distortions of the FSF's position, or
the subset of its supporters who, for reasons I don't understand, are
just as unfamiliar and end up distorting just as much.

Really, please consult the FSF on this by writing to them or reviewing
any of their published materials.

-- 
Colby Russell