Re: GOP-PROP 2-1: LilyPond is part of GNU

[David Kastrup]

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Graham Percival" <address@hidden>
> To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:51 AM
> Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 2-1: LilyPond is part of GNU
>
>
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 03:51:21PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
>>
>>> My web space runs windows IIS.  We have the .iso and occasional
>>> tools (e.g. the regtest rater) running on this.  Do you think this
>>> is a problem?
>>
>> Ouch, I'd forgotten about the regtest rater.  That's C#, right?
>> or is it .NET ?  I don't actually know what the difference is.
>> Do you have any idea if it will work under dotGNU or Mono?
>
>
> C# is a language.  .Net is a software framework that provides a
> development and runtime environment to a number of languages,
> including C#.  So it's both.  I've no idea if it will run on dotGNU -
> I've not got an environment set up to test this in, and since my own
> website _is_ M$ .Net, it doesn't make any sense for me to set one up.
> I think we need to work on wording for disclaimers for links to sites
> like mine.

Well, obviously the GNU policies are not intended as an incentive for
writing disclaimers, but rather as an incentive for writing software
running on free platforms.

So the question "how can we maintain the spirit of the GNU policies
while offsetting annoying consequences to Phil who is running a service
for LilyPond on M$ .Net" makes about as much sense as "how can raise
taxes on gasoline for the sake of reducing environment impact while
offsetting annoying consequences to anybody requiring to use a car as a
consequence of the modern mobile lifestyle".

Now I am obviously neither diplomat nor politician enough to contemplate
believing in as many as six conflicting things before breakfast.  The
point of such policies is to be an annoyance to people like Phil that
are working on non-free infrastructure.  Adding a disclaimer means
adding a statement "why we think that violating the policies is a good
idea".  That's not actually helping the policies.

It would look better if a version of the regtest rater was at least
known to run on free software.  But I don't really see this as a high
priority objective given the currently rather limited use of this tool.

-- 
David Kastrup