Re: exchange with Richard Stallman

[joey@finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE (Martin Schulze)]

Good evening folks!

First of all I want to say that the FSF really has done a great job in
writing and publishing software. Would we be that far if Richard
Stallmann hasn't founded the FSF and compiled the GPL? They made is
possible to have very much "free" software all around.

The FSF and all GNU programs are very important to point out that good
software has to be freely distributable and that conventional
marketing of software is out-of-date. I feel this is a good reason for
supporting the FSF and beeing part of the FSF. Therefore we really
should try finding compromises between our goals and the ones from
Richard Stallman.

Apart from Richards statement concerning Linux not beeing an operating
system the FSF is very important, especially for Linux. It is Richards
daily speaking that Linux is the kernel and the operating system
contains the kernel, namely Linux, and many other programs, many of
them GNU.

OTOH for us, Linux fanatics, Linux is more than the kernel or an
operating system. At least for me Linux is more, it's an attitude in
writing and publishing good software and documentation as well as an
operating system which does exactly this (based on the Linux kernel,
of course).

Now this is a problem in understanding each other and accepting others
oppinions, for us Linux _is_ a Unix[tm] clone, for Richard it's "only"
the kernel. We have to point out that as long as he is discriminating
Linux as an operating system it will be impossible for many of us (*)
to also say GNU when we talk about Linux. This essential topic could
divide the {GNU,Linux}-community into two parts (and I know where most
of the Linux ppl would be) and stop Linux ppl from working together
with the FSF (except for the GPL). This _has_ to be discussed with
Richard!

FSF/GNU is a label for "freely distributable" and non-commercial
software, for really stable and compatible software. It's a label for
high-quality software as well as for software being developed together
with ppl from all over the world. If "Debian GNU/Linux" is part of the
GNU project IMHO it's a big win for us. (except for Rich's
statement...)

The other way round, Debian would be an enrichment for the FSF, too,
so it should be possible to work out compromises with RMS.

RMS seems to be a kind of stubborn (*), but we shouldn't decline his
request that fast. This is much to easy, for my feelings. We both have
worked a long for our goals and some of them are the same, so it should
be possible to find compromises, I hope.

Are the compromises really inacceptable? Please, ppl, think of that
again, I beg you.

I agree with Bill that there's likely enough middle ground for us to
go our way while still giving FSF a debian distribution from which
they can pick up the great majority.


* Discussion about stripped or unstripped binaries

  I think it should be no problem to provide a possibility to get
  unstripped binaries. This could be handeled in each debian.rules
  file. The only thing that RMS should accept to do is: install a
  Debian system (with stripped binaries), iterate through the whole
  archive of Debian packages, uncompress each of them, recompile each
  with an additional argument that omits stripping, dpkg them
  together, remove the directory. At the end, after some period he has
  a tree of requested unstripped binaries. This _should_ be acceptable
  for both of us. Some of us even recompile each program on their own
  in order not to get defect binaries, so should the FSF.

  There are other approaches out there. If we're at the point of
  deciding which one to take we could provide a little 1-week vote in
  this channel to get the new method.

* Discussion about clear documentation

  Richard shall report the miss of clear documentation (esp. where)
  and work on it. Some of us might want to help because it's good for
  Debian, too, to have good and clear documentation. I don't see a
  problem on this topic

* Discussion about separation of software

  Our goals are providing a good distribution with everything "on
  board". OTOH I really can understand RMS not even mention non-free
  or "restricted" software. We have to accept this. We should make it
  possible to separate those package so the FSF has an easy job in
  building their version. I for myself don't see a problem in doing
  so.

  I believe these two aims are not compatible, but as long as the FSF
  will pick up the packages they like and are not going to publish the
  "whole" Debian system I don't see any problem here.


Bruce wrote:

> 1. He wants us to do things his way.
> 2. He wants us to do all the work of doing things his way.

> See how even the most simple request such as "build the packages yourself"
> gets bounced back with "Can't you build them my way and run a complicated
> procedure to get packages the way you originally wanted them".

Bruce, are you sure these are the last words from RMS on that topic?
Although I have had a resultlesss discussion with him before, I really
cannot believe that it is that easy to say "Hey, let's quit our
co-operation." Much of our goals are the same, so there must be a way.


I would like to see concrete needs of the FSF to decide wether they
are doable or not.

I also agree with Bill that we need to do some work, and that it's a
good time for it. We really should think about quitting co-operation
with the FSF. As long as we want to be a part of the FSF we shoule pay
attention to FSF concerns and discuss their possibility for us.

I would be happy if you, Bill, would negotiate with Richard. If you/we
come to elementary decisions, I want debian-private to be informed
and would like us being involved in this decision.



(*) I have had a strong discussion with him exactly on this topic some
time before. I'm a honorary supporter for Linux in northern part of
germany.


-- 
  / Martin Schulze  *  joey@infodrom.north.de  *  26129 Oldenburg /
 / =?iso-8859-1?q?kristian_k=f6hntopp@cyberbox.north.de          /
/        verursacht durch kaputte Gatesoftware auf der CyberBox /