On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:52:00PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 1/31/06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "olive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if > > there were in accordance to the FSF. > > > > I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free > > software if they operated in accordance with Debian. Debian-legal has > > proved > > better at guaranteeing the FSF's 'four freedoms' in practice than RMS, what > > with the GFDL and all. > > > > Let's face it: the FSF didn't create a full free-software system. Debian > > did. > > The FSF didn't even create the majority of the GNU project tools. > > Volunteers > > did, and many of them *disagree* with the FSF leadership. Discussions of > > the > > merits of FSF policy are forbidden on FSF mailing lists, with the exception > > of a few which appear to go to /dev/null. > > > > The FSF is, bizarrely, a top-down autocratic organization, with all the > > flaws > > that implies. Debian isn't, with all the benefits and flaws that implies. > > Let's face it: Debian wouldn't exist without the FSF.
Maybe not. Neither would a lot of other things. That's a strawman that doesn't change where things are today. The FSF deserves respect for their part in getting us here, but not so much that they're exempt from critical review. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
