Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
Joseph Carter <email@example.com> writes:
> Richard wants us to remove non-free software from our main servers,
> remove all mention of non-free software from our web pages, and remove
> mention of non-free software from our installation and config files.
Not at all true! He was, IIRC, perfectly happy with the suggestion
that non-free repositories be listed in source.list as long as they
were commented out *by default* -- or even commented out only if
someone responded "yes" to a question like, "would you like to see
only truly free software".
(He's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong about this.)
> If things happen as Richard would like, non-free will essentially become
> available only to those who ask "is <something non-free> packaged?"
Nope, see above.
RMS is extreme enough without people needlessly exaggerating his
positions. I may not always agree with him, but he is generally both
reasonable and consistent, within the limits of what he perceives that
his morality will allow.
Chris Waters firstname.lastname@example.org | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or email@example.com | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.