Comparing distributions

[MJ Ray]

Rico -mc- Gloeckner <mc at ukeer.de> writes:

> Having said that, one might notice that you (RMS, FSFE) play an important
> role in this part and and should be aware of the importance of
> Objectiveness.
> 
> IMHO it would be important enough if the comparison was made objective,
> but in some post- or preamble the Importance of Freedom were raised in
> words.

(Ease off the Spurious Capitalisation -- it makes things harder to read.)

While I sympathise with your general aims, you can't really expect an
organisation which promotes software freedoms to relegate such an
important issue to a preamble or appendix, can you?

Both of the measures given are objective in one way: a quote would
prove an expression of regret for the inclusion of non-free software;
clear labelling on non-free-ness either exists or doesn't;  but
on another level both are subjective: what is truly an expression of
regret and what about contradictory statements?; when is labelling
clear and do we agree on the definition of freedom?

I'm not sure that arguing this point further before any draft material
appears will serve any useful purpose.  I'm sure authors will bear in
mind that we need clear and useful criteria, but all criteria are
ultimately subjective.  I think including source material and
commentary on how the objective yes/nos were reached is very important
too.

-- 
MJR