On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:16:23PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > AJ wrote: > > What makes more sense? Keeping stuff our users rely on and expect > > available, having productive relationships with upstream and helping > > improve their software, or blindly adhering to an ideal, brooking no > > exceptions and ignoring any negative consequences? > May I rephrase this question to match what I see as the facts? > > What makes more sense? Keeping stuff some of our users rely on and expect > available, having counterproductive relationships with upstreams (who provide > non-free stuff and expect it to be put in main while we improve their > programs) -- or adhering to our ideals, fulfilling our contract with our > users, and encouraging the creation of free software?
Unfortunately, it seems fair to me to say that distributing docs from the FSF adheres to our ideals (supporting the free software community of which the FSF is certainly a part, and supporting our users who do tend to like having documentation), fulfills our contract with our users (to build a useful operating system, and to keep our OS as free as it's always been), and encourages the creation of free software (by, eg, actually including documentation for the APIs they'll need to use to write such free software). I don't really see how trying to convince the FSF to change the GFDL is counterproductive; surely it's unproductive at worst. Counterproductive would be, say, declaring that the FSF distributes stuff that's non-free, causing them to cut ties with the Debian project and refuse to engage in any dialogue about the GFDL. So, I'm sorry, but I don't think the answer to your question corresponds with what we should do about GFDL docs and RFCs in main at all. Is there some reason you're not willing to answer my question as it stands? One of the issues with moral stands is what you do when they're in conflict with other good things. Are you willing to admit that you're in favour of hurting our users by dropping necessary documentation? Or are you only willing to stand up for your opinion when it will be seen in an entirely adoring light? Again, there is very little question about whether we want to remove non-free docs from main. We do. The question is whether we do it immediately, damn the consequences, or whether we do everything we can to limit the negative consequences for our users (and possibly the FSF or the community in general), and take our time about it. Well, the other question that you seem to want to raise is whether we should decide we've been hypocrites and liars for the entirety of our existance by choosing a particular new reading of the social contract. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
