On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:36:49AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > See, here's the problem. > > You make a proposal with very hard bright-line tests. When people say > "that's too strict, what about special cases", you say "oh, these are > just *guidelines*; we can still grandfather things or make special > cases". But then you refuse to say how any of that will work. As far as I'm concerned, that's a solution in search of a problem. However, no one's telling you you can't draft up some grandfathering procedures. They can even be as simple as: if ($upstream_source ~= .*(gnu|fsf).org.*) then $grandfathered=yes endif That's up to you. Whatever grandfathering procedure you come up with, you've got to sell it to the rest of the Project. > I'm afraid that if we agree to such a proposal with no explicit > thoughts about grandfathering and exception-making, then some people > (probably including you) will begin objecting to each and every > proposed exception and grandfathering, in the name of "the agreed > guidelines". And what is illegitimate about objecting to exceptions? If someone wants to put netscape in main, does anyone have standing to complain? > What can you say to tell me that won't happen? You aren't willing to > point to any existing manual and say "I would support grandfathering > that one"; you aren't willing to say "this is the kind of > exception-granting process I would be happy with". Why should I have to tell you it won't happen? What exactly is the problem with some group of people being hard-liners about DFSG 3 and not wanting ANY exceptions made beyind those listed in my proposal? Is such a stance philosophically illegitimate? Morally compromised? Offensive to the Church of Emacs? You have an unhealthy obsession with my personal opinion. I endeavored to make my proposal as neutral and to-the-point as possible. To the extent that I succeeded, my personal opinions are irrelevant. The proposal is the proposal and means what it says. It doesn't mean anything it doesn't say. And there are a great many things it doesn't contain, such as editorializing on my part. But in the interest of candor, I'll tell you my opinion. I personally have no problem if the GCC Manual and GNU Emacs Manual are moved to non-free. Sorry, I'm just not sufficiently enamored of these documents to want to compromise my principles in their favor. I own paper copies of several GNU Manuals, including the GCC Manual, and I won't hesitate to buy a copy of the GNU Emacs Manual should I ever require one -- GNU Manifesto or no GNU Manifesto. I also encourage other people to support the FSF by purchasing merchandise from them or making donations. I disagree with part of the strategy of the GNU FDL, I disagree with the FSF's tactics with respect to these manuals specifically, and I don't think these endeavors are completely compatible with the DFSG, but that's not the end of the world. That I do not support grandfathering efforts on these manuals doesn't mean I'll fight them, either. At the moment, I don't feel motivated to participate in such a discussion at all. If they stay in main, that's fine, though I'll be a little disappointed at the compromise, and I'll worry about the day when some non-FSF entity comes along and wants a similar exception made for themselves. -- G. Branden Robinson | Any man who does not realize that Debian GNU/Linux | he is half an animal is only half a branden@debian.org | man. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Thornton Wilder
Attachment:
pgpFLv67icZab.pgp
Description: PGP signature