Bind v. TinyDNS

[Dave Roberts]

On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 19:09, in a fit of delirium, I wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 15:18, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> > Anyone who agrees with me is welcome to their opinion, and so is anyone who 
> > does not. Thankfully, the Fedora Project's goals do and, as a member of 
> > this community, I shall lobby for those goals and objectives not to be changed.
> 
> This bothers me. Why limit the choices of others? 

I mis-spoke here. It actually doesn't bother me that you would lobby to
keep the agreed on Fedora goals and objectives unchanged. I'm all for
your right to speak out for your opinion. I guess I should just say that
I disagree with you and that I believe the Fedora community should open
the door to packages with licenses that you would deem objectionable,
including "closed source" licenses that Fedora could actually get the
rights to redistribute (possibly one or more of Java, Flash, nVidia 3D
drivers, etc.). Rather than having a system which meets the
philosophical objectives of some fraction of the user base (possibly >
50%, I don't know), but then forces the other large fraction to jump
through hoops to get what they want, I'd rather have a distribution that
provides it all and then allows the user to select what he wants
according to his philosophical bent. Yes, we'd have to decide what "all"
is, given the finite space afforded a distribution, but you get the
point. In short, more functionality, less philosophy.

-- 
Dave Roberts <ldave at droberts.com>