|
From: | Thomas Lord |
Subject: | whither GNU |
Date: | Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:34:58 -0700 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060808) |
It's interesting how this discussion has laid something bare: The take away message from RMS' intransigence seems to be that if you want to make a priority of exercising software freedom so as to maximize the utility of available free software, you should not subject yourself to GNU project leadership. That seems ironic but it shouldn't be a surprise: The GNU projects, especially central ones like Emacs, do double duty as "messages" and their role as messages takes priority over technical quality. I'm pretty sure that isn't what I signed up for when I decided that software freedom is the Right Thing but I guess other people's mileage may vary. -t Richard M. Stallman wrote:
About 4 years ago I asked you about whether it was compatible with the GPL to distribute an XEmacs with a Qt interface, given that (a) the X11 version of Qt had been relicensed to GPL, but (b) the Windows version was still under a non-free license. You replied that it was compatible if the build system provided no support for linking Qt on the Windows system, and configure (for Cygwin) warned that Qt is a nonfree library and therefore not supported on Windows. That sounds right, but it is a different issue.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |