Subject: Re: improving project maintainership
From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:24:11 -0500 (EST)

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote, in part...

>     rms> I am sorry if you expected us to set them aside, but you 
>     rms> should have known better.

> No, I neither expect, nor ask, you to set them aside.  I ask you to
> consider the possibility that your core beliefs would be better
> implemented by policies different from those you have used in the
> past.

Based on this paragraph, you don't see that you ARE asking rms to
set principles aside in the example you have picked.

RMS has a finite lifespan.  Taking a chance on a multi-year detour
through non-free software, in order to go from point A to point B is
not a good strategy.  The risk is that you get stuck on the detour
and are seriously prevented from getting to point B.  This can
happen no matter how clear and inevitable the path looked when
you chose.

The future is always uncertain.  The free'd ssh path you described as
an inevibility sounds pretty risky to me.  Although I was not aware of
the discussion as it happened, based on your description in this
thread, I think RMS acted appropriately and in agreement with the
principles of the free software movement.

Forrest Cavalier
License analyzer and compatibility reporter.