On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:32:17PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Joe" == Joe Buck <joe.b...@synopsys.com> writes: > > Joe> I do think that RMS overstepped the line that we had set up when he > Joe> told us to hold off on creating a release branch. That was unprecedented > Joe> interference. > > Then why acquiesce to it?
It seemed the alternative was going to war over what we hoped would be a temporary situation, and this was connected to a licensing issue. I still haven't found out what happened this weekend, when RMS and the lawyers were supposed to meet to decide whether the new license draft (that addressed the problems that Ian listed) would be OK. > I've seen other statements on this thread indicating that the SC will > essentially give in to any demand from RMS. Which isn't really correct, as I pointed out before: RMS objected to keeping hosting the project on gcc.gnu.org. He objected to the switch to subversion. He objected to the switch to bugzilla. In all three cases, the decision he did not prefer won. > It seems we have > collectively struck a bad deal that requires us to go against our own > better judgment... can we renegotiate? I think that we are going to have to work out a new understanding after this episode. > Joe> Brad Kuhn said something to the effect that he considered RMS the > Joe> expert when it came to promoting the idea of free software, but > Joe> on technical matters RMS is just another developer. > > That sounds like a better deal, but it isn't the one we actually have. > Instead it seems to me that we can only make certain kinds of progress > by neglecting to mention them to RMS. Or has somebody told him about > C++ project yet? :-) To be more precise, Brad's been trying to convince RMS to think of himself that way, particularly on issues that he doesn't really understand that well. And it certainly is true that it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. I know RMS knows about gold.
