Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom
John Kelly <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:56:20 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>2007/9/12, Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com>:
>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>>> > 2007/9/12, John Kelly <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>>> > > An obsession with "freedom" that insists on removing RFCs from source
>>> > > tarballs, is absurd. Why not change the contract.
>>> > You're not talking seriously, are you?
>>> Why not? Is it difficult to acknowledge that not all people think the
>>> same? Have you noticed that none of the GR end up with 100% on one side
>>> and 0% on the other?
>>So, what exact change in the social contract are you proposing?
> From a random RFC: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2060.txt
> "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
> With RFCs available to anyone with a web browser, it's absurd to say
> they're non-free, and a waste of time removing them from Debian.
> If people need that spelled out in a contract, then spell it out in a
> way that can't be misconstrued.
You are arguing free as in beer and not free as in speech.