Re: The new Social Contract and releasing Sarge
"Jamin W. Collins" <jcollins@asgardsrealm.net> schrieb:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:29:08PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
>> "Jamin W. Collins" <jcollins@asgardsrealm.net> schrieb:
>> >
>> > Maybe we see things differently, but from my point of view, the
>> > maintainers have known for quite a while that they did have to
>> > change things.
>>
>> One option of changing things would be to convince the FSF that the
>> current GFDL is not free, and to create a better version and aks
>> upstreams to "upgrade" to that one.
>
> And in the interrum the packages could have been modified to resolve the
> violations in the current state of things and reverted when/if the
> discussions with the FSF succeeded.
The point is that many people expected that such action would
- lower our chances for an agreement with the FSF
- worsen the relationship between individual package maintainers and
upstream. And this would in turn lower the chances that these upstream
authors are willing to relicense their work, should the discussions
with the FSF _not_ succeed.
>> In the FSF case, many people thought that waiting, moving flamewars to
>> other issues, and letting our representatives talk to the FSF would be
>> the best way of "working".
>
> And we have a specific delegation to continue these talks. In the
> meantime, the packages could have been updated/corrected.
Which I had considered unwise. Only for the GFDL stuff, firmware is a
different issue.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: