Re: Questions

[Richard Stallman <rms gnu org>]

    > The FSF has no "part" in Vim.  This is what makes such situations so
    > ticklish.  It will be my challenge to convince the developer to make a
    > change in the license, although I have no basis to say he owes me anything.
    > 

    Then maybe you should compromise and not ask them to.

That is not "compromise", that's "giving up without trying".

The whole point of everything we are doing is to promote free
software.  That's why I ask developers to change licenses; that's also
why we launched GNOME.  If a popular program's license is too
restrictive to be free software, but the circumstances suggest that
there's a chance it could be free, we can't just give up--we must at
least try to convince the developer to change.

I get the impression from what you said that you are modelling this
not as an step in promoting free software but as a kind of private
dispute involving the FSF.  I have no private dispute over Vim.  This
is just one more way I try to promote free software.  (The FSF as an
organization is not involved here at all.)

What happens with Vim is not directly relevant to GNOME, but this
discussion reveals a general point is of great concern for GNOME.  It
looks like we have not paid attention to explaining to people who get
involved with GNOME development about the larger context--that it is a
part of GNU, and that the overall purpose of GNOME and GNU is
spreading free software.  We should do this education better in the
future.