On 2006-01-31 00:40, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:34:25 -0500 Nathanael Nerode 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. > > Agreed entirely. > It's sad, but true...
I am new to this list... I was thinking about it before and didn't know that the debian people are trying to improve it. I knew about Open Source Initiative and that they based the definition on debian's guidelines. I would never dispraise FSF's work nor that of individual programmers. But yes, we need some progress. Pavel P.S.: Nice to meet you -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]