a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) wrote: > Excuse me, do GNU actually have precedents when the ‘stubborn > governance’ was proved to be needed to keep things free? > > Readline, Objective-C backend, not allowing propietery hackery with GCC, > GPLv3 and Tivioization, Emacs and plugins, come to mind.
Thank you. However, Iʼd appreciate if your answer were more verbose. I am not so good at history. > Emacs and plugins Refers to the question whether there should be a formal API to denote that the library is under GNU GPL-compatible terms, right? > not allowing propietery hackery with GCC Refers to the suggestion to make GCC licence more permissive to compete with LLVM better, right? > Objective-C backend Refers to events of 30 years ago, right? Whatʼs about Readline and Tivoization, though? > IIRC, @l...@gnu.org and Co. were initially going to reserve ‘Guix’ for > package manager only, while calling the system distribution ‘GNU’ — > simply ‘the GNU’ > Being made that way, despite all the best intentions they had, it would be > obviously perceived as a statement “we are the proper and pureblood GNU, > while Debian and other GNU distributions are impostorsâ€, so RMS, of course, > strongly opposed that. > > How such an issue would be supposed to be resolved with a > ‘non-stubborn’ governance? > > To understand a opposition, one needs to know the why. Taking your statement > at face value as to what might have been said, that is, calling other free > systems for "lesser systems" would be unfriendly and unkind, so why do that? > That in it self would be a good reason to strongly object to such a statement > since it would alienate people working on other free systems. > > But now knowing the precise words used, making any fair analysis of the > decision is hard, and a simply way to find a false reasoning is to call it > "stubborn" or similar. Sorry, I re-read this several times, yet still do not follow. Could you recap it in a simpler language? P. S. Are you aware, that your MUA munges multibyte mail?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature