On 2/2/20 5:37 PM, Ales Cepek wrote:
I was not sure whether to endorse the GNU Social Contract or not, but
you definitely convinced me that I should. Thank you for removing my doubts.
On 2/1/20 9:23 PM, facebook wrote:
This webpage is cause for banning of individuals from the GNU Project.
It is PHISHING of the GNU organization
and prclaims policies for GNU that didn't come from its official
These individuals need to be banned, regardless of what contribution
they make. There is no justificiation for PHISHING the GNU name and
organiziation. This is a serious legal and ethical violation that has
to be forcefully confronted. Also, be aware, that failure to protect a
trade mark is cause for the government to rule against trademark
authorization and pocession. They need to be zelously protected, or
they are legally lost.
What would be achieved in this particular instance by adopting a
punitive document over a normative one?
For the record, as much as I believe Ruben's aggressive communication
style serves him and his cause badly, I would prefer if he was not
But, as I understand from Alfred's response, he has found ways to post
in spite of efforts to silence him. So, how would the "GNU Tools Wiki
Code of Conduct" solve what seems to be a technical problem?
In any case, I would much prefer a volunteer community guided by a
normative philosophy than one compelled into harmony by "Contracts" and