Hello, I usually refrain from answering to messages on this mailing list that in my eyes disqualify themselves as nonsense; but maybe sometimes one needs to do so, as I wonder if they do not end up influencing people.
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 07:29:45AM +0000, Alex Taylor wrote: > The first part is the four freedoms established by Stallman many years ago. > No > problem there, we all agree with those. > The second part talks about basic cooperation on technical and practical > matters within GNU. That seems sensible too. > Finally the text has a non-discrimination clause. Surely nobody could be > against that either? Well personally I'm not. > (...) I also think if they want to support anti-apartheid, the suffragette > movement, pro-choice movement, animal rights, plant breeders' rights, nuclear > disarmament, pro life movement or whatever other movement ... then that's > great too. But I will not insist upon it nor imply that non-support is > somehow morally deficient. Okay, so you seem to be more or less in agreement with the content of the Social Contract, with a few reservations on the non-discrimination clause. Fine. So in case you are a GNU maintainer, I would say you should endorse the document! > Finally "endorsing" the text would give the rebel group a legitimacy which > they > neither have, nor deserve. But then your only argument for not endorsing it, and inciting others to not endorse it are ad-hominem attacks towards the authors, by gratuitously qualifying them as "rebels"? (Hm, is that an insult or a compliment? That generally depends on your position towards the topic at hand...) > It's instructive to look at the track record of > these renegades. The Guile and Guix projects have both excluded and/or > vilified people who disagree with the people in power (the same people who > push > the "social contract"). Can you substantiate these claims? I have been part of the Guix community since almost its beginnings, and do not think there has been any such incidence. > If you choose to endorse this text, bear in mind > that the words are imprecise so don't be surprised if, sometime down the road, > your endorsement is used as a weapon against you when you fall out of favor > with the powermongers. And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us being powermongers? Andreas