Re: Dissatisfied w/Debian? Make something 'pure'.
According to David Starner:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 09:51:34PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > And it
> > would always be in flux, because RMS is prone to change his definition
> > of "free" from time to time.
> I find this a little unfair to RMS. Debian is prone to change its definition
> of "free" from time to time [...]
The DFSG is written, clear, and (intended to be) unambiguous. It is
therefore superior to RMS's Daily Update as a project yardstick.
But please understand, I am *NOT* slamming RMS. Everyone changes his
mind from time to time as he learns and grows. ("A foolish
consistency", etc.) My point is not to criticize anyone for being
human and thus variable, but to deride the idea that _any_ one
person's political views could be a viable basis for a huge volunteer
project like Debian.
> note the number of packages that move from free to non-free when
> someone takes another look at the license.
That's just a matter of not having read licenses carefully enough, or
the first reader(s) not having information required to interpret them.
Not the same sort of situation at all.
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence,
but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K