Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> I tried to be polite and humorous earlier,
You succeeded at those qualities of communication. But, not at
delivering any message regarding Autoconf and the GNU Project. You were
terse.
> but that didn't work so
> I'll have to be more direct. As the most-active current Autoconf
> maintainer I can state fairly authoritatively that this discussion is
> an unnecessary distraction for me, and overall is a net minus for the
> GNU project.
>
> You're certainly free to work on an Autoconf variant under the terms
> of the GPL, but the <autoconf@xxxxxxx> mailing list is maintained by
> and for GNU. Please don't use it to hinder the GNU project.
Do I read you correctly that, presented with working patches, etc., you
would refuse them on political grounds? If so, I'll take it under
advisement as I make my plans.
Part of why I 'feel out' mailing lists like this is very exactly to
flush the Gatekeepers into the open. So that they say what they are or
aren't going to do, and make clear their agenda. It is particularly
pointless to "stop the talking, start the coding, and hand over the
solution" like a good little open source heroic archetype, when some
Gatekeeper is just going to shoot it down. I'm not even grousing so
much about the FSF here. In hindsight, if this is your position, I
could have anticipated it. I'm just thinking of all the open source
people that have busted my ass for daring to assess the lay of the land
before I begin coding.
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
- anonymous entrepreneur
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
