Re: "keep non-free" proposal
>> Obviously, it's worth asking upstream to relicense before pulling stuff.
But
>> when upstream has *refused*, that's another matter. Isn't it?
>
>Frankly, I don't think there's been a reasonable discussion with upstream
>yet. What I've seen has been people telling the FSF they're immoral
>and hypocritical and inconsistent, and insisting they do what we want,
>or face the consequences. Yay.
I don't think there's been a reasonable discussion for an entirely different
reason. I've seen the FSF
* asking for comments, and then ignoring them without responding to them
* not replying to requests for clarification
* not replying to requests for explanations of the motivation behind certain
clauses
* responding to attempted discussions of license issues with "This is
off-topic."
* responding to requests to explain where it's on-topic with silence
* responding to suggestions for possible license changes with "This is none of
your business" (rather than reasons why the change is a bad idea)
* responding to freeness issues with "That's just theoretical."
* responding to practical problems with "That's merely a practical problem,
not a freeness issue, so you should ignore it."
* responding to practical problems which are freeness issues with "That's not
important."
* responding to explanations of why they're important with "I don't care." or
"I don't believe you."
* declaring that GFDL license issues were *all* going to be ignored until GPL
v. 3 was released, regardless of anything else
* refusing to give a contact point for discussions of possible license
modifications
* keeping their future potential license changes top-secret, not available to
anyone
Who precisely was preventing reasonable discussion here? Well, the FSF, in my
opinion.
>> Personally, I have removed all the non-free documentation packages from my
>> system. And I used some of them before. (I admit, I still read a few of
>> them on the web when I have to.)
>
>Out of curiousity, why do you think it's better to read non-free stuff
>on the web than to install it on your computer? The only practical
>differences are ones that hurt you; are you just irrational, or does
>your double standard have some hidden benefits?
I know which ones are non-free and remind myself
(a) to create replacements for them
(b) not to volunteer patches or modifications for them, because I don't like
to do free work unless it can be released freely
Does that qualify as a hidden benefit? That is precisely the practical
difference -- the ability to tell easily which is which. Currently it's an
*ing pain, so I've mostly stopped making documentation patches at all. I
found that a number of packages didn't include the documentation license in
the copyright file (which is still a serious bug, right?), but I got sick of
going through all of them looking for more.
I've also found that I never need to use the vast majority of the doc
packages. The autoconf manual is essentially the only exception. I guess I
occasionally use parts of the glibc doc, but only the parts specifying
prototypes for POSIX functions, which are available elsewhere.
>> >Or are you only willing to stand up for your opinion when it will be
>> >seen in an entirely adoring light?
>> I think I just answered that question. :-)
>
>What, with a "yes"?
No, with a "no". Now, see, that's a *gratuitous* insult.
(And I admit I've made a few myself; sorry.)
Reply to: