[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Savannah-hackers] Re: the issue that will not

From: Rudy Gevaert
Subject: Re: [Savannah-hackers] Re: the issue that will not die
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:53:04 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 10:15:24AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> I certainly see that point.  However, we might want to see this as a
> chance to educate.  Many people are confused about what it means to be a
> GNU package.  They often don't realize that it requires an ethical
> commitment to a set of principles.  This is why we find many programs
> that have started to call themselves "GNU Foo" without even writing to us.
> I actually think using in this way will help to educate people
> that "things can be "not part of GNU" but still Free Software -- and
> still GPL'ed even".
> To help clarify this, we probably will want to improve the text that
> currently says "This package is not part of the GNU project".  Maybe it
> should say "This package is not part of the GNU project, but it is still
> Free Software released under the Foo license."

I totally agree with you.  But perhaps it should say: "This project is
Free Software".  And make clear that (e.g. it is not part
of the GNU project.  But that be pointed out for the all projects, not
every project.  Your sentence is kinda negative, mine is positive :).

> And, those that now say "This package is part of the GNU project" should
> probably say "This package is part of the GNU project; read this document
> to see what that means", and it could link to some statement of GNU
> project principles.
> Rudy, would those changes address your concerns?

Yes :)

Kind regards,

Rudy Gevaert
Rudy Gevaert ; address@hidden ;
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who 
understand binary, and those who don't

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]