Re: "keep non-free" proposal
I wrote:
> So, let's focus on making the SC less resistant to misinterpretation.
s/less/more/
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 06:07:14PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> You've stated that you disagree with my intended interpretation of the
> SC. I believe the concept in question is that we're promising to
> distribute in 100% free form software systems which have been in 100%
> free form.
I'm not sure what a free form software is, but I think I get what you're
saying.
> In other words, I'm thinking that the SC is a promise that we won't
> "go commercial" relying on the number of people who are locked into
> our system to boost our sales.
Exactly.
> There's more to the SC than that, but I think that captures the
> essence of part 1 -- this includes the current subtitle, and the
> emphasis on the DFSG and on not making free things depend on non-free
> things.
Yes.
> If you disagree with this interpretation, perhaps you could state
> yours?
I don't disagree with the intended interpretation. I disagree with the
manner in which your proposals were written. That's all. Suffield's
proposals are much more conservative in their changes and more direct in
meaning. He avoids unnecessary verbosity, which tends to lead to
misinterpretation. His proposals remove implementation details,
timelines, and other unnecessary restrictions in a document that is
intended to pass the test of time. Conjunctives such as don't and won't
are replaced with "do not" and "will not". Etc.
I know this is all a great pain, and certainly not a fun topic to talk
about. It's empassioned by our ideals and goals. I'm going to read
over the proposals again, and the different editorials on the subject.
At this point, however, I believe Andrew's proposal is far closer to
what we need.
Remember, his proposal for the editorial changes to the SC does NOT
include dropping non-free. That is a separate proposal.
--
Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net> http://www.wookimus.net/
assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
Reply to: