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

Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files

Alex Romosan wrote:
> now, this can also be interpreted as anthony saying debian was founded
> before the WHY-FREE manifesto so the manifesto couldn't be our raison
> d'être. i don't think it was either, since at the very beginning
> (and i've been using debian since early in 1995) there was no
> obsession with software purity. this came about in 1997 and culminated
> with the social contract written by bruce perens (who later on left
> the project when it looked like, and it was, hijacked by the
> completely free-software zealots). now a different bunch of zealots
> are trying to hijack the project once again attempting to extend the
> definition of software (as i said previously, back in 1997 the talk
> was mostly about source code).

Wow, that is a beautiful piece of revisionist history. Just a few
innaccuracies --

Debian began in 1993, not 1995.

Bruce's departure from Debian had nothing to do with the definition of
free software, and everything to do with his desire to make us switch to
rpm, and otherwise change the whole direction of the project.

The "bunch of zealots" who are promoting freedom in documentation as
well as software is largely the same group of people that were around
and supporting free software when Bruce wrote the DFSG.

> i think the debian project as a whole needs to reach a consensus
> before anybody starts removing files from packages because the said
> files don't meet their purity standards. this is not happening. you
> have taken upon yourselves to extend the definition of software, purge
> the distribution of what you deem impure, and in general ignore any
> opinions that don't agree with yours.

Please provide an example of a file that has been "purged" from the
distribution due to containing non-free documentation.

> it is because of zealots like you every revolution fails in the end.

Unfortunatly, it is because of the tolling rants of developers like you
that we cannot seem to get a consensus anymore. And we seemed *so* close
to a consensus on the FDL, and actually doing something too..

see shy jo

Attachment: pgp5PROA57Qdc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: