| 1 |
Thanks for the link but that doesn't cover it. It's not remotely |
| 2 |
convincing, Red Hat could say exactly the same about their distro, Red Hat's |
| 3 |
package management system is GPL'ed but they are still very clearly a |
| 4 |
company, very clearly a .com and it's obvious that their motives are |
| 5 |
different from Debian's who are very clearly a .org. The problem with |
| 6 |
gentoo is that it is far from clear where their motives lie. M$'s success |
| 7 |
was started by some stupid decisions made by IBM, which IBM have regreted |
| 8 |
and looked for ways of getting back at them ever since. IBM have their own |
| 9 |
vested interests in Linux which have nothing to do with morality. For IBM |
| 10 |
supporting the free software community is a means to an their own unpleasent |
| 11 |
ends. Gentoo 'appears' to have strong connections to IBM, which to me |
| 12 |
contradicts their .org status. These are some of many reasons why I think |
| 13 |
that if gentoo want to be a .org they need to explain who they are, hence |
| 14 |
the need for a social contract. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Also if M$ was replaced with another company which behaved in exactly the |
| 17 |
same way as M$ behave now we would have achieved nothing. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Regards, |
| 20 |
David Herbert. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Hi! |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> This question has been addressed previously. See |
| 25 |
> http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-dev/2001-May/004613.html |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Note to Everyone: |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> site:lists.gentoo.org <search term> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> typed in google is a wonderful way to search the mailing lists archive. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> tod -google, google google |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> _______________________________________________ |
| 36 |
> gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 37 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o |
| 38 |
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |
| 39 |
> |
Archives