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

[Serge MUNHOVEN]

On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:46:06PM -0800, Bela Lubkin wrote:
[...]
 >  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<

I'd really find it sad if we came to this.
Lynx being already GPLed, would there really be that much benefit from
totally GNUing it ? Considering the loss of competent contributors ...
Yes, sure we may (may!) attract some other hard-core GNUs instead. 

Nobody can prevent you from coding according to the GNU standards, in addition
to already releasing your code under GPL, if you like. By the way, even GPL
has already often been an argument against various developpment options in the
past (but I'd not like to miss it nonetheless).

As to getting a stable distribution point, IMHO there are still other means
which we did not fully exploit. Especially I would like to get a clearer
picture about mirroring (no reaction to my previous post ?) :

What do we expect people to mirror ? The latest stable distribution and
the latest developpment version only ? The complete current dev serie ?
FAB (frequently asked binaries) as well ? Any demand to mirror the website
as well ? How much space do this various options request ? (Would be the
first thing I'd like to know, before contacting people to ask for mirroring).

In the end I'd like to put up a larger list of mirror-sites with their
updating frequency etc. If Jim needs/wants a hand ... (but sorry, not before
about a week).

 - Serge

Off-topic: RMS surely can be criticized, but I don't like blind "market forces"
either (probably *much* less).

Today's food for thought coincidently found in the news:
"I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell.