On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 21:01, Michael Banck wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Making software more useful and more available is the goal. I think > > non-free aids in that. > > Well, I respect your personal opinion, but I tend to have another one.
This is the fundamental philosophical difference. The endless debate in our community. The Free Software movement vs the Open Source movement. OS Foundation/ FS Foundation. Utility vs. Freedom. Some choose utility above all else (eg. Linus, ESR). Others choose freedom above all else (eg. RMS, and nowadays even Bruce Perens it seems). My choice is freedom over utility. I consider freedom the principle, and an important one, much more important than "mere" utility. Given freedom as the goal, the question is "what's the long term strategic advantage (of engendering more free software) of either keeping or removing non-free?". Of course making such a decision, and designing any changes to DSC etc will undoubtedly upset those who set the alternative goal as "the one true goal". Which is why a vote will ultimately be needed. In fact, perhaps someone can run a straw poll now "Is your fundamental principle one of Freedom or one of Utility?" Although to prevent further unnecessary flamage, a proper vote would probably be needed at some point. cheers zen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
