On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 21:00:47 -0400 Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> wrote:
> That is not important in these cases. If we don't come to a clear > conclusion about a program like ScummVM, we simply do nothjing. Here we already have everything we need to reach a conclusion about ScummVM without bringing in rationale that are too much subjective. For that we just classify ScummVM as a software that has no known 100% free software that can run in it, and declare that it steers users toward nonfree software because of that and it's done. This doesn't need to modify the FSDG, it doesn't need to change or clarify its interpretation, it doesn't need endless discussions, etc. > > for every similar instance, it becomes a sisyphusian task > > There will not be so many -- we will only bother with the programs > that people bring to our attention. And we don't need to re-evaluate > them unless there are is a pressing case to do so. Endless discussions also tend to make people tired and has the potential to bring in conflicts and make it less fun to contribute to FSDG distributions. For instance here we have someone that resigned from this mailing list already as an example of that (but probably also because of the complexity of the situation which brings misunderstandings, the fact that several things were conflated together, etc). Personally I'd also like a simple conclusion so that we can get on with more tangible contributions to free software and that we don't have to argue endlessly to avoid potentially negative side effects of a decision that is too complicated to implement correctly. People participating in FSDG distributions probably also want to end up with concrete results, like freeing some software, updating some packages, adding new packages, removing nonfree software, etc, so having simple ways to deal with situations like that helps the community stay healthy which helps the project in the longer term. Denis.
pgp1ApQU0SEv6.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
