On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:51:43PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: > Both sides of this argument are wrong, and tempers are too high for you > to resolve this by yourselves. As an SPI director and the DPL historicaly > responsible for decisions that both sides are arguing about, I feel that it's > time for me to step in between the two parties.
I welcome your efforts at brokering an amicable settlement.
> Debian, a Free Software organization, isn't being entirely true
> to the Free Software ethos while the non-free file tree is so
> close to the rest of the system. Changing that is mostly an
> administrative issue, and need have little technical effect. The
> fact that Debian developers have reviewed this multiple times, and
> that it has been the way it is since I was project-leader,
> doesn't mean it's not broken.
The above is simply not true. The GNU FDL has sustained criticism from
people in the Debian Project who do not actually care to see Debian
continue to distribute non-free works, even if they are "unofficial".
If your point is that it looks like *institutionally* we're making this
argument, then your point is taken. I agree that three years is too
long to wait for the General Resolution on this subject to be
reactivated.
I remain uncertain that the FSF is amenable to a quid pro quo, however
("FDL made DFSG-free in exchange for Debian dropping non-free from its
archive servers".) I am even more uncertain that frank horse-trading of
this nature is palatable to two organizations that each claim so
stridently to be founded on principle.
I am, however, hopeful for the future. Thanks for your efforts.
--
G. Branden Robinson | It's not a matter of alienating
Debian GNU/Linux | authors. They have every right to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | license their software however we
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | like. -- Craig Sanders
pgpTncHFdfoOf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
