Re: lynx-dev Re: looking for space for lynx distribution

[Bela Lubkin]

Webmaster Jim wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 11:47:26PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:

> > A GNU program should not recommend use of any non-free program, and it
> > should not refer the user to any non-free documentation.  The need for
> > free documentation is now a major focus of the GNU project; to show
> > that we are serious about the need for free documentation, we must not
> > contradict our position by recommending use of documentation that
> > isn't free.

This is the sort of crap which makes me want to run as far away from GNU
and RMS as possible.

According to this `rule', you could not even refer to a commercial Unix
man page describing that system's own internal idiosyncracies.  RMS
isn't just trying to provide free software, he's actively trying to kill
all commercial software entities.  (I work for one, so yes, I'm biased,
but I don't think I'm unreasonable.)

If it happens over time, by market forces, that's fine with me.  But I
am not going to participate in an active witch-hunt *against* my own
livelihood.

> I'm forwarding this to the Lynx developers list for comments.
> 
> I would like to make the following points:
> 
> *)  Lynx has been distributed with a GNU license for a couple years
>     now.  Making it a GNU program will give us a more stable 
>     distribution point than we have now.
> 
> *)  Many people have contributed to the Lynx source code.  Some of
>     them understand the GNU coding standards and some don't.  The
>     major difference I've seen is that our long options don't use
>     two dashes, but one.  Changing this would break existing scripts!

As one of those contributors, I'll make the following additional points:

  *)  If you make this change, I won't be contributing any more code.

  *)  I will think seriously about having any existing code that traces
      back to me *removed* from the source.

>Bela<