[quagga-users 212] Re: ANNOUNCE: Quagga Routing Suite release0.96

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: quagga-users-bounces at lists.quagga.net
>[mailto:quagga-users-bounces at lists.quagga.net]On Behalf Of Chris Caputo
>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 9:40 AM
>To: quagga-users at lists.quagga.net
>Cc: Kunihiro Ishiguro; Richard Stallman; jcasey at gnu.org
>Subject: [quagga-users 206] Re: ANNOUNCE: Quagga Routing Suite
>release0.96
>
>
>I see no reason to be harsh with RMS.
>

On the other hand, Chris, I do see a reason.  RMS and I have
cooresponded before, and I don't need to explain my view of
how he acts in these situations to you.  If you have a different
view of how he acts then you might try saying something
along the lines of "Ted, I have always found RMS to immediately take
action when I have brought things to his attention and I
see no reason to be harsh" rather than making what is a
veiled condemming of me without warrant.

Or was your statement referring to Paul?  You see that is the
problem with being vague.  You are basically tarring everyone
else but yourself on the forum.

If you disagree with something that I or Paul or anyone else
says on this public forum, then spit it out and name names.
That is what freedom of speech is all about.  I may disagree
with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to
say it.  It's a shame that these noble sentiments that founded
the country are being buried by a bunch of politically correct
pansies.

>If the Quagga development effort proves itself to be effective over time,
>it will gain respect as a result.  Informing RMS and the FSF of Quagga's
>existence is all that is warranted right now.  It is up to the FSF to
>decide if and when Quagga should be considered a GNU Project and/or
>whether to de-list Zebra in favor of Quagga.

This is what I said yesterday.

>There is no need to try to
>strong-arm the matter.

Who is trying to strong arm the matter?

>It is up the FSF to
>voluntarily decide where they want to lend their credibility.
>

Once again, exactly what I said yesterday.

>As for reasons to deny Quagga "GNU Project status" _at this point_, if I
>were RMS/the FSF I would question:
>
>  a) the tone of some of the emails from the group.  ie. demanding rather
>     than requesting, and unnecessary urgency.
>

Tone of e-mails is totally subjective.  If RMS and the FSF makes
decisions on blessing a project based on subjective standards
like this instead of objective views of what the project actually
is doing, then the designation "GNU" is disgusting.  I don't
believe that they do this, do you?

Either Quagga meets the standards for a GNU Project or it
doesen't.

>  b) the newness and enthusiasm of the group is yet to be proven over
>     time.  I have no doubt it will be proven, but from RMS' perspective
>     I am guessing he has seen projects flare up and fade away quickly,
>     such that patience is warranted to determine what is credible.
>

Time is an objective measurement.  If there is a time that Quagga
must be in existence before it's designated GNU, then I see no
way this is construed as subjective and unfair.  It is perfectly
objective and fair.  All that is needed is to name the amount
of time the project must be in existence.  If you can find this
on the GNU website, please bring it to our attention.

>  c) what will happen with Zebra over time.  Now that there is competition
>     Kunihiro (Zebra maintainer) may decide to re-ignite Zebra
>     development.  No one can predict with 100% accuracy what Kunihiro
>     will do and changing directory entries or bestowing "GNU Project
>     status" on Quagga without this knowledge would be rash.
>

This is absolutely wrong.  I will refer you to the following:

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html

According to RMS's philosophy as elucidated here, just because a
project is comprised of many parts that are not "GPL" or not
"GNU" does not mean that it should not be listed as a "GNU"
project.  Linux has many parts in it (like Perl) that are not
GPL and not GNU, yet the entire distribution must be called
"GNU/Linux"  Larry Wall would be displeased if someone termed
Perl "GNU/Perl" in fact his aversion to GPL was the reason
why he wrote Artistic License in the first place.  But his
wishes cannot affect the designation on the Linux OS, according
to RMS.

In short,
the wishes of a code maintainer of code that is a "parent"
or a subsection as to whether the code can be considered GNU
have no bearing, as long as the parent license is compatible
with GPL.  This is made very clear in many areas of the GNU
website, why do you think GNU people are so fond of relicensing
BSD-licensed code as GPL?

In addition, according to this document, just because a project
has a GNU project that comprises part of it does not also
mean that it's designation as GNU must be forgone.  Linux
for example uses the GNU C compiler, and gcc makes up a very
important parent to Linux.  However Linux is considered a
separate project from gcc, thus GCC's designation as GNU does
not affect Linux's designation as GNU/Linux.

Your argument "c" simply isn't valid.  Designation of Quagga
as GNU is completely independent of the wishes of Kunihiro,
or of the fact that Zebra is already designated GNU, per the
GNU Project's written philosophy.


>There is nothing to stop the Quagga project from moving forward while it
>earns the credibility necessary to impress the FSF.  Tons of open source
>projects exist and flourish without being part of the GNU Project.

This is quite true.

>When
>Quagga is ready, I expect the FSF will want it to be a part of the GNU
>Project.
>

This may be true but if the FSF treats Quagga like a second hand
citizen, very subjectively, then I doubt that Quagga will want to
be a part of the GNU Project.

RMS and the FSF have a chance right now to prove that they can
be objective and fair.  We have told them that the existing Zebra
maintainer is intolerable and we forked as a result, and now
we want GNU blessing.  RMS wants to approach this as an innocent
until proven guilty issue, so far Kunihiro hasn't been ignoring
him, so in his eyes, Kunihiro is not guilty.  Fine and good so
far.  What I am going to make damn sure happen is that if
Kunihiro sends a few e-mails to RMS along the lines of "I'm sorry
I was bad, I'm going to fix it in the future" that RMS cannot
just dump that sort of crap off on us with the designation "Problem
fixed" and ride off into the sunset.  Kunihiro has pulled this
before with the Zebra userbase and this response cannot be trusted.  Until
there is a fundamental change in how patches to Zebra are handled,
and the backlog of patches is inserted into Zebra by Kunihiro, it is
all blowing air.

Ted