Translation of that German reply about LinuxTag

[E L Tonkin]

Georg -

You've committed an elementary error here. If you don't mind:

I didn't write it but translate it. Don't reply to it as though I said it!
If you didn't realise that it was translated, I suggest you try reading
the entire email before hitting 'reply'. Otherwise, it sets a bad
precedent; what if somebody translates the Focus article? Would you reply
to them in the first person, too, quoting the article as though it were
their own words? A bad precedent, one that's likely to stop me translating
and/or posting any non-original content on this list for fear of
misrepresentation.

These lists are archived. There is no way for anybody reading this
archived message to know the authorship of the original mail, without
going back and reading the entire thread, a task which they may not bother
to do - they're more likely to assume that you as FSFE president wouldn't
mislead them. You've removed all indications of the actual origin of this
piece!

I hope you see why this is a problem for me, 

em

On 18 Jul 2001, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:

>  || On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:08:19 +0100 (BST)
>  || E L Tonkin <py7elt at bath.ac.uk> wrote: 
> 
>  elt> 1 press agency, 1 radio show, 1 news magazine - a good yield for
>  elt> the FSF(E). Does anybody have the Focus article?
> 
> Yes, as scanned PDF. Since that is rather large-ish, you can find it on
> 
>   http://gnuhh.org/work/activities.html
> 
> or download it directly:
> 
>   http://gnuhh.org/work/fsf-europe/Focus-29.2001.p106.pdf
> 
>  elt> " because practically every programmer has access to the source
>  elt> code aimed back doors and weak points can be added. "
>  elt> (this quotation is indirectly attributed to Georg Greve). 
> 
> I never said any such thing and in the German version you would
> normally not attribute the statement to me. All statements by the
> people are clearly marked by quotation marks.
> 
> Unfortunately, that article is *extremely* incomplete. It is a
> summary, not a transcript. I have asked for the recording so we can
> provide the audio file and a transcript, but I haven't received
> anything yet.
> 
>  elt> The Focus article disqualifies itself at once ...
> 
> I think you're being overly critical here - this is just an
> "eyecatcher." The article itself contains some errors and doesn't
> speak of GNU/Linux, *but* it avoids the cardinal mistake of confusing
> free and gratis and doesn't even mention "Open Source." It speaks of
> Free and non-Free Software instead.
> 
> All in all it is much more precise than articles by some dedicated
> computer magazines, which came as a positive surprise to me because I
> also don't read this magazine normally. :-)
> 
> Regards,
>                 Georg
>