Hi,
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 04:14:09PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
>> > b) at some stage there was documentation for motif, but no lesstif.
>> > Would motif linked programs have been suitable for main because it
>> > was a documented protocol which one could replace?
>>
>> No, linking isn't the same as connecting to a server IMO.
Branden> Pure evasion.
Evasion? Evasion? Thems fighting words, almost ;-)
Branden> You are using the existence of documentation for a protocol
Branden> that has no de facto free implementation as justification
Branden> for a program's inclusion in main, IF policy were such that
Branden> it would be excluded because of the non-existence of that de
Branden> facto free implementation.
Nope. I think that the correct distinction is that in one
case, some one has come up with a fully free, standalone program that
does not require any non-free element to exists on you machine, yet
empowers you to function in a ghastly proprietary world out there.
Far from promoting a non-free library, it enables you to
participate in a a distributed transaction; and yes, the remote end
may be using proprietary software, and yes, there is yet no free
equivalent. That shall come.
You think that free software emerged full blown from the minds
of the creators in the beginning? You think we did not have to
bootstrap on propreitary systems?
We have a free client side. Rejoice in it. If enough people
use and like the software, we may have a free replacement of the
server side one day.
manoj
stepping down from the soap box
--
But Officer, I stopped for the last one, and it was green!
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
