This is off-topic, unkind and beyond unsuitable for this list. Please
drop it, all of you.
You are working from the point of view that the maintainers must under
any circumstance accept your patch, that is not how things work.
Maintainers are allowed to pick any thing they want, or not. This is
irrespective if the patch is of a purley technical nature, or not.
If you feel that this
Apolgize that this message got through.
Can the gnu-misc-disucss admin take a note of this thread, and filter
out anything by dick (he is a known troublemaker, and troll).
> Free Software does not care who you are, it is about the rights of the
> individual to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve
> software. Nothing else, nothing more.
I wish this abstract ideal was reflected in actual reality!
But it does, the GNU project and the Free
Free Software does not care who you are, it is about the rights of the
individual to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve
software. Nothing else, nothing more.
Free software as such cannot be sexist, but that you do not wish to
partake in communities where who you are is imaterial,
Just a casual reminder, Daniel Pocock is a troll, he does not speak
for the Debian project, the GNU project, or the FSF (USA, Europe, or
Latin America).
Him claiming anything in the capacity of the Debian project is
complete fiction.
How is this different from the pv command that is quite standard on
GNU/Linux systems?
Please move birthday congratulations to some other list or off list,
they are off-topic for all the list in the CC (gmd, help-gnu-emacs and
libreplanet-discuss).
Please stop thinking you know what someone misunderstood or not,
specially when they are not on this list and can respond.
The term "operating system" has multiple meanings, one is of a
"monitor" (or kernel), another is a fully fledge system that the user
can interact with. We, in the GNU
It is best not to feed the troll, it already has been banned from some
GNU lists as it is since it cannot behave.
> There is nothing insidious with such a paint
And yet, free software rhetoric emphatically characterizes nonfree as
"causing
harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed," which is
Merriam-Webster's
definition of "insidious."
No, it doesn't. You do not qualify what is
There is nothing insidious with such a paint -- its just paint.
When talking about software ethics one talks about what chains are put
on the users from those who control the software, in the case of a
paint manufacturer it might be by using Paint Restriction Managment
that would prohibit
The FSF isn't sanctioning anything here -- the GNU project is run
independtly from it. While there might be many groups of hackers
outside of the GNU project, the GNU project as such doesn't have
anything called the "GNU assembly". To call it that, is to
misrepresent the GNU project and how the
There is indeed no such group in the GNU project, it is not mentioned
in any of the guiding documents for the GNU project, nor is it a group
that has been created in the GNU project since its inception. The
binutils as manual doesn't count.
Using language like hypocrisy is not kind.
Because you disagree with a message is not a reason to reject it. If
you wish to make a nicer atmosphear here, instead of calling for
moderators please try to ask the party to use a kinder tone, that is
far more benetifical.
In either case, there is no such thing as a "GNU assembly", it would
be
Jean Louis, please restrain yourself and stop posing messages with a
reply to each every message on this list. There is little point to
continue threads that are enteirly unrelated to the GNU project (or
Libreplanet).
More specifically, discussion about groups that are entierly unrelated
to the
Since there is no such thing as a GNU assembly (there is a GNU
Advisory Committee), such a rename would also be missleading. This
group, while they might share some values, is not part of the GNU
project nor does it represent, or speak for it.
Their best course, to not mislead users (though that
Saying something, and enforcing -- seeing that that offer is upheld --
are two entierly different things. I can say that all non-free
software should cease to exist, but I have no means of enforcing it.
Maybe it is the time to update the AGPL to enforce the source to be
available when program is served server side?
The GNU AGPL is a license, not a court -- hence it cannot enforce
anything. That is up to the legal system.
>What we can do in GNU in regards to new technologies considered trap,
>as users will be lured to launch non-free software without possibility
>to verify it is to expand or extend the LibreJS to verify Webassembly
>programs for their licenses.
>
> It is easier,
What we can do in GNU in regards to new technologies considered trap,
as users will be lured to launch non-free software without possibility
to verify it is to expand or extend the LibreJS to verify Webassembly
programs for their licenses.
It is easier, and far more practical to
In that particular example I have been checking programs that are free
software as they are hosted on Github with free software licenses. I
gave you hyperlinks as references, you could verify it yourself.
No, I (and really, it is not about you or me here -- it is about the
casual user)
[...] I click on the URL and application is in the browser ...
I think that sentence sums up the overall problem.
In Emacs, since you gave that as an example, when you install a
package, the list is curated. Same with your GNU/Linux system. When
you copy a snippet of Emacs lisp code, you
It is free software and specific use example. In those examples I
cannot see anything bad.
You show one example, when the majority do not follow that example.
It is the overal practise of how "web applications" work that is the
problem, not unicorn instances that just happen to be OK.
Webassembly runs in the browser, I click on the URL and
application is in the browser,
And thats the problem. How do you check that the program you just ran
(pretense) is free software?
When you download something, you have not executed the program yet,
and can make an informed
I have downloaded so much software in last 24 hours as I was
installing new OS (Parabola), so I have downloaded it from some server
and I run it.
How is that related the topic of Javascript / Webassembly and porting
the GNU system to it? How is this similar to how Javascript /
2. Browsers do not offer POSIX API to JS/WebAssembly for very good
reasons.
The other issue is that it wouldn't really be an operating system, if
it runs in a web browser. Which kinda is the whol point of the GNU
project. :-)
3. Web apps stored on "the cloud" are bad because
Please use a kinder tone on this list, your language is simply not
acceptable here.
Nobody has argued that there are no other models where
Javascrip/Webassembly could be used in an ethical fashion, but a
discussion that talks about anything, and everything will end up in
nothing.
The way that Javascript, and Webassembly is intended to be use is the
problem.
Large number of people spawn VPS-es today, they have no idea if it is
"free" software and even so, if they hear free they may not know what
it means. All they want is to run their Wordpress or other instances.
Wordpress would be running on their computer (even if they are
borrowing
Asking someone to "knock it off" isn't very kind. So a small reminder
that this list applies GNU Kind Communications Guidelines
(https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html).
Furthermore, how are we supposed to square Richard's call to action
to replace non-free JS with free JS, if JS is to be understood to
be inherently bad (as in the picture painted in this discussion)?
Nobody claimed anything like that, so why make the absurd claim?
Javascript isn't bad,
I just cannot see clearly how is Javascript trap relevant to
WebAssembly as the Javascript trap is about proprietary software.
You could replace Javascript with Webassembly and the Javsscript trap
would make an equal important point. The reason why the title
mentions a trap is that they
... The JavaScript Trap is a (reasonable) argument against
trends of modern web apps, i.e., a software architecture relying on
code-on-demand that lies under someone else's control, esp. when that
software is not freely licensed.Â
Which is exactly the same argument that can be made
If you are shipping an operating system, like GNU, you don't need to
run it in a web browser. That is a good thing.
> Or maybe they will, but that doesn't mean it is something the GNU
> project should promote.
The GNU project should promote Free Software in all the ways that the
user can benefit from those freedoms, regardless of what technology
underlies those freedoms. If WebAssembly or
You are arguing that we should take away a technology from the user,
The GNU project has often made decisions on not using a specific
technology, or trying to get around the problem in ways to promote
user freedom.
because some people use that technology in ways you disagree with.
The same is true for JS/Webassembly. In fact, one could argue that this
is a significant part of the value offering (offline use of the web
application).
You can copy the whole site offline and continue using it.
Yes, there MAY be interaction with a REST API, but that is a completely
As mentioned having GNU tools available on machines you do not have
control over (i.e. your friends machine) makes this infinitely
valuable IMO.
That is to vauge of a statement to make any general claim, what does
"available" mean here? Download the source? Or execute random
blobware
Sounds like multi-user UNIX-like system, or modern GNU/Linux
multi-user system.
On a multi-user system you can keep your own files in our home
directory. You can decide to copy a program you like from one
location to your home directory.
With Webassembly / Javascript (specifically in the
I am confused regarding the issues raised here against "porting" a GNU
package
to WebAssembly and would very much welcome clarification.
The issue isn't porting the software, the issue what the user must
depend on to be able to run the program -- which is a remote server
when it comes to
Your example assumes that you run things locally, which is seldom the
case when it comes to Javascript/Webassembly.
The issue is depending on someone elses computer to run somenoe elses
software. Which is also entierly different from communicating with a
server.
Browsers already offer websites the ability to access your [computer]
And that is the crux of it all, it is the exact situation the
Javascript trap talks about. Recommended reeading ...
So for instance GNU coreutils, bash, etc. could be compiled to
run in a browser tab.
I suggest you read the article about the Javascript trap about exactly
this type of danger. Depending on someone else to even be able to run
your program is something we defintily do not want.
I had a suggestion about all the GNU software on your site - since
WebAssembly is now a reality, maybe you guys should get to making
the browser versions of LL your software? :)
WebAssembly, and Javascript are two things that create a grave danger
towards user freedom.
That is utterly uncalled for, and unacceptable on this list, if you
have nothing useful to say, please refrain from sending such nonsense
here.
You are conflating multiple topics, and trying to find similarities
where they do not exist.
If Savannah hosted a youtube-dl like program, with copyright
assignments in order, the DMCA complaint would have just as well been
filed towards those who wrote the program. So no, nothing is
"minimized"
>This again shows that the paper work demanded by FSF and GNU project
>protects both projects from potential legal liabilities in the
>future. One should appreciate the peaceful use of free software as
>distributed by GNU and FSF for that reason.
>
> These
This again shows that the paper work demanded by FSF and GNU project
protects both projects from potential legal liabilities in the
future. One should appreciate the peaceful use of free software as
distributed by GNU and FSF for that reason.
These specific examples do not show that
Very nice suggestions! Thank you.
The GNU system, and GNU project is entierly volunteer based, and it is
up to each maintainer to decide what features to work on and include.
Or how they decide what to keep or remove. They have no obligations
other than some fundamental corner stones of the GNU project and
themselves.
You
What Jose mentioned, but also -- this all reads as if the GNU Bison
maintainer is doing an excellent job adding new features and moving
Bison forward. There is no obligation in keeping backward
comptability for ever -- indeed, the directive has been marked
obsolete for over 10 years!
If you are
I have been through some strange experiences recently. Certain web
pages take seconds to load. In some instances the communication
fails with a time-out.
This sounds like an issue with your ISP -- and not a general issue.
Pages that Google had ranked top in search result lists last
Etc is indeed orthogonal to the software freedoms, but the FSF
does not focus on it.
There is a slight confusion here and it is the line between the FSF
and the GNU project -- the GNU project (nee RMS) started the FSF to
support it -- so by extention it has always focused on the same issues
This list is dedicated for discssions about the GNU project and the
GNU system where no other GNU mailing list is suitable, discussions
about the FSF are better directed to the FSF.
> > The FSF keeps ignoring our calls for a neutral discussion space.
>
> The FSF is not involved in GNU governance, so why should they provide
> such a thing?
Of course the FSF is involved in GNU governance. They raise money in
the name of GNU, we assign copyright to the FSF,
I was wondering if it would be better to call GUIX GNU/GUIX. I was
reading the wikipediea page of GUIX and there is a large dispute
over its naming in the project. Wouldn't this all be solved if
they called GUIX GNU/GUIX or even better, GNU.Hurd and to kill off
the Guix name.
Care to please stop misrepresenting the GNU project? The GNU project
has not accepted a social contract and has no intention of doing so,
so this constant "make believe game" from you is getting tiresome.
The core mission of the GNU project is described on the GNU project
web site, specifically
I am very sorry for this. And I apologize because I was one of the
people who suggested people discuss things on this list. And I was one
of the original moderators of this list till Mike and Brandon decided
they wanted to do moderation on their own without my and Carlos help
[*].
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 08:56:24AM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> The text circulated is not a text by or for the GNU project, so this
> is indeed not the best place for discussion of it
Quite on the contrary, it is a text by members of the GNU Project for the
GNU P
The text circulated is not a text by or for the GNU project, so this
is indeed not the best place for discussion of it, seeing that those
wanting to discuss the text refuse to discuss it here, it might just
as well be worth moving any such discussions to their web site.
In either case, please
You claimed that your opinion doesn't matter, and that is quite
untrue. It is not something I nor anyone else claimed.
And that is what I was addressing, not if you and I might value things
differently, since that will obviously be the case. Specially in a
project where we do wish anyone to
> I am not clear what
It's explained down below in the text.
And I read it, it still does not explain it clearly to me or its
implications or how it is something the GNU project is about.
Truncating my message and then dismissing everything else seems
strange, why not elaborate on the
> Contrary to the members of Manor farm, we welcome anyone and will not
> dismiss your opinion just because you are not a GNU maintainer. This
Wait, I was told that my opinion on matters of GNU governance does not
matter because I am not a GNU maintainer and that was not by the
I think everyone is still curious about the lack of representation of
the GNU projects opinions that haven't gone through a biased lens.
So I'm a GNU maintainer, I've asked now repeatedly that those wanting
to voice their non-GNU document at least have the courtesy to mention
that the
The text also says:
â
the GNU Project, which creates and distributes a software system that
respects users' freedoms
â
There is a slightly confusion here, and implication that isn't the
intent of the GNU project, I think.
Namley, "distribute a software system that respects
The impossibility is in that you might not get unsubscribed even if
baning someone from this list. And what use would that be? To make a
pointless stance on top of a mountain of authority?
Apparently gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org owners have
chosen to do nothing about it and therefore it is
The best solution to the problem is a public mailing list whose
subscribers are limited to GNU stakeholders. This would go a long way
towards discourse civility, and is what was asked for in the beginning;
you have the power to do such a thing.
This list is exactly for that, for
Your message is hostile, and unkind. Mike's message was explaining the
situation, but you attack him and accuse him. I think you made Mike's
point.
Just like we do not accept obvious garbage language, we also do not
accept hostility towards other members of this list. Please try to
use a
> I've had the same problem. No idea what he's trying to achieve...
What I see is indistinguishable from spam but with more annoying
intention (I get into this in detail below) amounting to
harassment. I'm surprised that this behavior is tolerated and not
identified as a source
I feel the same, itâs terrible that such messages are tolerated.
They aren't, and please stop implying that they are. You ask us to
moderate the list, which we do, but we cannot moderate every single
message that is sent here. But then quickly complain when your
messages are not sent
> That's just the tip of a very large iceberg. I know it, you know it,
> and every GNU maintainer knows it. When we get appointed, we receive
> a 1000-word message from RMS with some quite non-trivial instructions,
> including, but not limited to, a pointer to maintain.texi as the
>So what do you think that someone tries to communicate with the
statement
>"You are sick"?
> Ignore the statement, or see past it -- be the better person.
Okay, so if I understand correctly, you are telling me to be less
susceptible.
No, I'm asking you to help improve the
> If you feel so much angered by an email, try to see past the points
> that you get angry about and try to find what the other party is
> trying to communicate.
So what do you think that someone tries to communicate with the statement
"You are sick"?
Ignore the statement, or
Here it is with my suggestion for the moderators.
Thank you. Moderators cannot do anything when someones CCs you
directly, none of the messages you mentioned went through to this list
that I can see (you can see the public archive at
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/).
Manor farm is the poorly run farm by the evil Mr. Jones in Animal Farm
by George Orwell.
If you feel so much angered by an email, try to see past the points
that you get angry about and try to find what the other party is
trying to communicate. It is much better to try and steer the
discussion in to a constructive direction, than trying to moderate
what people can or cannot say --
Thank you for showing your support for the GNU project. But this is
not a document by the GNU project, as a GNU maintainer you are not
required to endorse or even support the GNU philosophy or free
software movement since we wish to welcome anyone and everyone if they
wish to contribute to the
So I'm a GNU maintainer, I've asked now repeatedly that those wanting
to voice their non-GNU document at least have the courtesy to mention
that the GNU project isn't requiring nor will require anyone to pledge
their allegiance to anything particular. This has been answered with
a false
These are good questions and my apologies we didn't make this more
clear. The GNU Social Contract is important because it defines what the
GNU project stands for. It is a mission statement.
This is not true, the non-GNU anti-social edict doesn't define
anything what the GNU project
Hi Alex!
If you have time and interest, the GNU project is looking for new
maintainers for several projects. See our take action page:
https://www.gnu.org/server/takeaction.en.html
Contrary to the members of Manor farm, we welcome anyone and will not
dismiss your opinion just because you are
Just because you feel it is an insult doesn't mean that moderation is
the right solution. The GNU project doesn't take easy solutions which
lead to slipery and vauge arguments like this where "insult" is enough
to get someone silenced.
If you really want to help, I suggest you ask people to
This might be interest for anyone wondering how the GNU project works.
I've attached the text version of the the Structure and Administration
of the GNU Project document as well (version 1.0.1).
--- Begin Message ---
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[
A code of conduct will not sovle the issue. Kind communication will,
your message like the previous poster are both unkind.
I suggest that you in the future send moderation requests to the
administrators of the list, and not here. That reduces any kind of
friction on this list.
I'm not saying that GNU will necessarily stop growing and decline. What
I'm afraid is that it might just become insignificant compared to
others, and thus its voice for the 4 freedoms become less and less
heard.
I think everyone would agree that we do not want the four freedoms to
> > Our concern is that at some point GNU may be just completely unknown
> > to free software enthousiasts. As in, when you'd ask people what free
> > software is about, they would answer "ah, yes, the stuff on github,
> > right".
>
> Okay, sure. But going back to Eli's point,
I would suggest everyone to read the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
as for how we wish to communicate within the GNU project. Calling
people names, be it calling them toxic or any other name is unkind
even if one might think it is justified..
That seems to be the ground of what some people
>As a GNU user, you may not know it but GNU maintainers do not currently
>agree to uphold the free software values that we care about; they merely
>agree to more specific GNU policies.
>
> It is intentional, since the GNU project doesn't want to exclude
> anyone from
The intent of gnu-misc-discuss is for serious discussions, these type
of emails do not engage in that. As you already have a place to send
these type of messages, please do so there instead of here.
As a GNU user, you may not know it but GNU maintainers do not currently
agree to uphold the free software values that we care about; they merely
agree to more specific GNU policies.
It is intentional, since the GNU project doesn't want to exclude
anyone from becoming a GNU maintainer.
Thought experiment: what would GNU be if all of its packages
stopped developing? Dead, right?
Software that can be run, studied, redistributed, and modified is in a
state that is strarkly different than matter that is decaying in an
irreversiable chemical reaction -- i.e. death.
So lets
I didn't miss it. You have posted Richard's message a couple of times
on various public lists and I have already replied twice explaining
what I believe are some misunderstandings about this initiative. You
can read my answers here:
That you think it is a misunderstanding, or not,
You promulgate the incorrect notion that the FSF appoints maintainers
for GNU projects, this is false.
You've ignored the easy solution, to cite the offical stance of the
GNU project instead.
I asked about it previously, it feel deafly silent, and since you
feelt that discussions should occur faster it shouldn't be unrealistic
to expect an quick answer as to why you're not willing to show what
the
>Is FSF censoring gnu-misc-discuss and other GNU lists and are
>these other things an attempt to circumvent that?
>
> The FSF is not handling moderation of GNU project mailing lists,
> nor is there any censorship going on here anymore. The list _is_
I noticed some of
Snce these endorsements of a non-GNU document are repetitive, and do
not foster any discussion topic, specifically since the GNU project is
not going to adopt anything like this -- can you please recommend
people to not post them here?
Is FSF censoring gnu-misc-discuss and other GNU lists and are these
other things an attempt to circumvent that?
The FSF is not handling moderation of GNU project mailing lists, nor
is there any censorship going on here anymore. The list _is_
moderated but that is to get rid of very nasty
This initiative is not supported by Richard Stallman.
That is quite false, you're free to do any kind of initiatives you
wish, so it is quite the opposite. What the GNU project won't do is
to require volunteers to agree to any kind of document similar to
this.
So why not add the offical
While GNU maintainers and volunteers are free to endorse anything they
want, this is not a document that is affiliated with the GNU project.
I suggest everyone to read what the GNU project stance is:
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:26:51 -0500
From: "Richard Stallman (Chief GNUisance)"
To:
just a public heads-up on progress on the GNU Social Contract. Following
our initially announced timeline, we had put online the first draft at the
end of January.
The GNU project has rejected the idea of a social contract. Can you
please rename it so to stop causing confusion? Seeing
1 - 100 of 737 matches
Mail list logo
