On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:09:30AM +0000, John Lines wrote: > An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, > suitable for endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who > already have machines and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror > which only contains main and re-badge it as fsf-linux. There are quite > a number of Debian based distributions which have been set up by > individuals in their spare time so I suspect they have the manpower, > especially since it can use all the Debian BTS, mailing lists etc. > > By putting in a very small extra effort they could even copy selected > items (GDFL docs) out of non-free into their own fsf-free section. > > I personally think that it is a mistake to try to cut users off from > non-free software by external diktat and that Debian gets it right by > offering the choice to not have it in your apt sources. In the long > run free software should win on its technical merits. I won't mention that you meant to say FSF **GNU/**Linux. Whoops. :) In any event, it's my impression from having spoken to people at the FSF over the past few years that they really like Debian. In fact, when the FSF posted a job listing for a system administrator recently, one of the job requirements was working with Debian GNU/Linux. That Debian doesn't enjoy RMS's endorsement I think masks the actual infrastructural importance of the Debian distribution to the FSF. I don't think they're interested in forking Debian. As an organization, it is my strong impression that they're interested in a constructive, cooperative relationship, and in working with us calmly and rationally to resolve what are, taken in the context of the entire software industry, pretty minor differences. I don't think the Debian Project nor the FSF will best cultivate this cooperative relationship by drawing lines in the sand. I don't think it behooves them to say "GNU FDL forever. No modifications, no compromise, and all GNU documentation shall use the GNU FDL henceforth." Equally, it doesn't serve us to say "You'll take our non-free section away when you pry our cold, dead hands from it." Quite apart from all of the above, I think both organizations have good and rational reasons for modifying the GNU FDL and dropping non-free, respectively -- reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with promoting détente between the organizations. This isn't to say that there aren't hard-liners in each organization who oppose such minor, if noteworthy, alterations in strategy -- there certainly may be. One of those topics has already been discussed to death on -legal, and the other is presently under discussion here on -vote. -- G. Branden Robinson | It was a typical net.exercise -- a Debian GNU/Linux | screaming mob pounding on a greasy branden@debian.org | spot on the pavement, where used to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | lie the carcass of a dead horse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature