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

Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal

On Jun 30, Raul Miller wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> wrote:
> > As I mentioned earlier I have written what I'm calling a negative summary
> > of the split proposal.
> Every tangible point in this summary appears to rest on the
> assumption that we need to have multiple physical servers to support
> the non-free/main split.  This doesn't make sense to me: all we really
> need are multiple DNS names for the two services.  [If we're not going
> to guarantee different IP addresses for the distinct names then we need
> to guarantee that the paths are different, but That's Not A Big Deal.]

We also need to expend effort to make at least one server virtual
hosting aware (or run separate ftpds bound to different IP addresses)
and ensure that nobody 'accidentally' can get to the non-free tree
from the 'RMS-approved' host.

Actually, I agree that there are no serious *technical* ramifications
of this proposal, at least in the short term (though I suspect a "yes"
vote would embolden the RMSization advocates); it's more a question of
(if you'll pardon the plagiarism) who we serve and who we trust: Do we
serve RMS and the FSF, or our users?  Do we trust our users to know
the difference between free and non-free software?  More directly, do
we want to play into the hands of those who would denigrate us for
being closet Bolsheviks?  Do we really want to expend time and energy
to prove our "free software manhood"? ;-)

|          Chris Lawrence         |           Visit my home page!           |
|     <quango@watervalley.net>    |     http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/     |
|                                 |                                         |
|     Grad Student, Pol. Sci.     |     Do you want your bank to snoop?     |
|    University of Mississippi    |    http://www.defendyourprivacy.com/    |

Reply to: