Re: Dissatisfied w/Debian? Make something 'pure'.
According to Colin Walters:
> TeX and the X Window System are both examples of non-copyleft free
> software that are included in GNU. (If by 'zealots' you mean the
> GNU people, which seemed pretty clear given the context)
No, I _don't_ mean the GNU people. I mean those who would completely
ignore practical realities in their misguided zeal.
In fact, I think that the GR supporters could learn something from the
FSF, which is pragmatic in its own way. For example, the FSF ran on
proprietary operating systems until free operating systems were
usable. They maintained, and still maintain, their goal of promoting
free software; but they recognized that practical necessities can
sometimes require a delay in implementation. And 'practical
necessities' are, by a mysterious coincidence, the primary argument of
those who oppose the GR.
Agreeing on what's "practical" and what's "necessary" is the hitch, of
course. But I would argue that it is not yet practical to remove
support for non-free software, and it is therefore necessary to keep
it for a while longer at least.
> Even if this was true, it would be entirely irrelevant to the
> discussion at hand, which is about changing the Social Contract,
> and the consequences of that change.
I don't think so. If the Social Contract is to be changed, that's a
change in the fundamental nature of the project and its goals. If the
Social Contract is open to renegotiation, I fully expect the DFSG to
be next on the hit list.
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