Many things have already been said, I'm not going to comment on them.
There is however a particular sentence that gives me a really sour
stomach. It's the second in:
| We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software
| Foundation. Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS.
To me, that is very vague, and therefore I ask those in favour of that
resolution to not only clarify the meaning but also explain why from
their point of view that meaning should be obvious.
First, this is certainly not meant to be forever. But without a clause
like "until this situation has been resolved", I understand it quite
so.
Second, how should I understand that second sentence? Putting it into
context ...
| We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software
| Foundation. Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS.
... it can be read as:
| We urge those in a position to do so to (...)
| [r]efuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS.
... or as:
| We (...) [r]efuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS.
... or (not very likely, though) indeed as an imperative (to whom?):
| Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS[!]
Which one is meant? If it's the second there's quite a chance the
signers are acting contradictory. That depends on ...
Last but certainly not least: What's the understanding of "related"
here, or: Which projects are meant by this?
If I understand "related" as "has in a way to do with it", I see a huge
variety of interpretations, for example: Project that are endorsed by
FSF or have been so in the past. Projects that show the FSF as
copyright holder. Projects that use the GNU word in the name, possibly
being part of the GNU project. Or even, since RMS is no doubt the main
inspiration of the idea of open source software, every GPL-licensed
project. Or even Debian itself, to bring this ad absurdum.
So, where is the line? Which projects should fall under this appeal
(first meaning) or boycott (second meaing), which not? How likely will
that hit innocent bystanders?
And I'm a little surprised nobody else seems to have a problem with
this. Perhaps it's just because I'm not a native speaker.
Christoph
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature