whither GNU

[Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>]

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.
>
>
>
>