[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Recently released QPL



On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 06:57:47PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > > Cites, please.  I have never seen him propose this, and I have seen
> > > none of these steps.  You are misrepresenting him.
> > 
> > It was a mistake to bring this up here.  My apologies, the cites would
> > almost exclusively be references to -private messages, though the results
> > of them have been discussed elsewhere.
> 
> You can send them privately, if you wish.  I have a complete archive
> of that list.

Those two I noted are the most prominent in my mind.


> > I can immediately name two such "suggestions" which have been discussed
> > on -devel after the original message on -private so I will cite them. 
> 
> > The suggestion that Debian stop distributing contrib and non-free on our
> > ftp sites or create a new site to distributed Debian without them was
> > his.
> 
> He only ever suggested the second.  He asked for a hostname under
> which only free packages could be found.

He did indicate he wanted that to be our main site.


> > He's also the person who had the problem with the longstanding allowance
> > of suggests into contrib/non-free for packages which he took as Debian's
> > ringing endorsement of non-free software rather than the simple
> > suggestion it was.
> 
> He only asked that the lack of a non-free package not be presented
> as an error.  He said he'd be happy if dselect would simply ignore
> such suggests links if non-free packages are not available.

It isn't presented as an error, it's presented as a warning.  =>  And not
even as that, I found.  Only if there are other problems is it presented
at all.  Otherwise it IS ignored.


> > (And yet his "suggestions" are just that, simple suggestions
> > right---even though he holds over us that he'll tell people that
> > we're NOT in fact a free distribution unless we do as he wishes..)
> 
> I heard he's already telling people that no Linux distribution is
> entirely free.  That's why I stopped calling it GNU/Linux.  Then
> again, I think I heard that from you.  I'll ask him directly.

No, several reports from LinuxWorld (mine not among them) covered that.


> So far you haven't shown any of the things you claimed in that
> paragraph at the top.  Nothing about the social contract, and
> no steps taken.  I think you should investigate how many of your
> views regarding RMS are based on things he actually said and did.
> He's often misrepresented; everybody loves a strawman.

I believe I was objecting to what he is trying to do, not necessarily
what he's succeeding at.  I will note that I suggested moving the
non-free software to a place where it was clearly NOT part of the
distribution and could be ignored in mirrors, but was still available. 
He said as long as it was there at all, even if it took effort to
actually get at and use, it was still there and as a result my offer of
reasonable compromise didn't solve the problem at all.

--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>            Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE            The Source Comes First!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<awkward> anyone around?
<Flav> no, we're all irregular polygons

Attachment: pgpWmcIGKcJK6.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: