Hi,
Yes, one of the problems that the comparison would necessarily face is that of keeping objectivity. So far, our preferred strategy would be to list relevant sources on this subject, rather than attempting to condense our subjective impressions in the first person, and then eventually to summarise these sources.
Assuming that the accumulated information is (on average) unbiased, the resulting summary should be a reasonable expression of the actual opinion of the distributor - who, I may add, is invited to involve themselves as much as they wish in the comparison process. Should the distributor find the sources used or the summaries made unfair or inaccurate, this should be taken into account.
The point of this is to accurately define the distributor's overall point of view (rather than their actions, ie. actual content of their software/ packaging) on the question of freedom. Following which, the individual reading the comparison may decide for him/herself if [s]he is fine with the distributor's attitude ;-)
Em
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Rico -mc- Gloeckner wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 09:54:28AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
- Does the distributor express any regrets for the inclusion
of non-free software?
Excuse me, while this point may already have been discussed, IMHO this is a subjective Point. Anyone should decide for him/herself if [s]he is fine with non-free Software.
The _objective_ Point of this is discussed in wether non-free Software is clearly labeled. The (still subjective) Point in the cite shouldnt be "ranked" or mentioned in any comparison.
again, IMHO.
-mc
-- | Rico -mc- Gloeckner | mc@na.sow.as | {ICQ:99798577} | | http://1048576735 | mc @ irc.tu-ilmenau.de | sms@ukeer.de | | :wq
// OLDSIG "All bad art is the result of good intentions." - Oscar Wilde
/* START NEWSIG */ Processor: (n.) a device for converting sense to nonsense at the speed of electricity, or (rarely) the reverse. - Tonkin's First Computer Dictionary