[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free

On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 08:30:10PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Drake Diedrich <Drake.Diedrich@anu.edu.au> writes:
> > John Goerzen.   A fanatic who has labelled all non-free software users and
> > maintainers immoral and wants us out of the project.  See point 6, the most
> > important one.
> The fact that I did not say that notwithstanding, let me add:

 [from Rationale]
> 6. Most importantly: it's the right thing to do, morally.

*Something* was labelled moral as opposed to immoral.
That thing was either:

1) people - Specifically the ones opposed to this general resolution
            (the zealot option)
2) not people - (the stupid option)

   Goerzen is himself a maintainer of non-free Debian packages.
Goerzen either:

1) doesn't see the inconsistency of this (the stupid option)
2) isn't bothered by the inconsistency (the zealot option)
3) has a hidden reason for taking this position (the conspiracy option)

> 2. I have long held this "no compromise" attitude with respect to
> non-free software.  This has not changed.  I have written with this

Package: idled
Priority: extra
Section: non-free/admin
Installed-Size: 85
Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Architecture: i386
Version: 1.16-8.1
Depends: libc6, libc6 (>= 2.0.7u)
Filename: dists/unstable/non-free/binary-i386/admin/idled_1.16-8.1.deb

   I really can't see any option but the stupid one here.
1) Didn't know he'd packaged it
2) doesn't see the contradiction
3) didn't think we'd notice

> with my own money.  I find it highly insulting that you would presume
> that, even though I have devoted years of my life and many dollars to
> the cause, that I have some hidden agenda. 

   I see two other explanantions then.  All of us who have chosen to work
in academia for the freedom have sacrificed large quantities of income as

> propose this because I believe it will help Debian, and thus Free
> Software.  You may disagree with me on the merits of this proposal, as
> many have, but my sincerity and devotion to Free Software cannot be in
> doubt.

   You ethics and intelligence then are in doubt.

> 5. I find it highly ironic that I should have to prove myself a worthy
> person to propose a Resolution to strengthen Free Software here, of
> all places.

   You've already proposed it, you didn't have to prove anything to do that.
Since there are strong moral and ethical issues involved you'd better not
live in a glass house.

> 6. The person that proposes it is irrelevant.  The content of the
> Resolution is what matters.

   And the content has been attacked on several fronts as well, particularly
the ethical aspects of amending a founding statement.

Reply to: