Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Lionel Dricot <ploum ploum net>]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:12:16 -0500, Richard Stallman <rms gnu org> wrote:

> GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no
> reason it should have any position on the question.  But GNOME is part

Is GNOME part of any anti-proprietary software movement?

I don't think so and I've never seen it like that. If it's the case, then
GNOME should reject contribution from any contributor that work with or for
proprietary software. We should also be sure that any GNOME technology is
definitely not possible to use within a proprietary software.

> of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software
> movement.  The most minimal support for the free software movement is
> to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid
> presenting proprietary software as legitimate.

Supporting something was never meant as "fighting something else". *Never*

That's maybe your may of supporting free software but it's not mine,
meaning neither yours or mine is the official vision of GNOME. And it's
definitely not *THE* way of supporting free software.


> 
> I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect.  There are
> many ways to implement such a rule, of which "block the whole blog" is
> about the toughest one we might consider.  I'd suggest rather to try a
> mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job.

As I said earlier, I think that "the less rules, the better". But it seems
that we have different goals. I don't believe that planet.gnome should be
planet.anti-proprietary-software. I think it should be the planet of the
people involved in the GNOME project, punt on de lijn.