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:
> 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.
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
Maintainer: John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Depends: libc6, libc6 (>= 2.0.7u)
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
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.