Re: ["agree"] Release plans

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Thomas Lord writes:

 > I'm saying an additional thing that is a bit subtle.   So, there should
 > be a (4) in that list.

OK.

 > The additional thing is a qualifier on "kick-ass software".
 > 
 > We want (4) Kick-ass software that is kick-ass in the specific
 > sense that a maximized number of users will find it personally
 > beneficial to themselves to study the code, modify it, and share
 > modifications.

Quibble: I don't think all free software needs to be kick-ass in this
sense.  So it's not a qualifier, it's an additional goal that we want
"a lot" of free software to satisfy.

 > I would claim that API features like a dynamic loader or
 > tree print/read in GCC are special.   They encourage people to
 > get work done by studying, modifying, and sharing code -- by their
 > nature.   GNU should / should have run for such features rather
 > than ban them.   Those feature-ban decisions were pretty much
 > the opposite of right.

Nicely put.  I had a feeling for this but you put words to it.
Thanks!

 > I also am saying that I can't think of any non-contrived feature
 > bans that wouldn't be subject to the same criticism.

I wouldn't go so far.  I think it's arguable that the
anti-tech-measures and must-distribute-keys provisions of GPL v3 fit
this bill.