I have to say I also thought you maybe implied what Martin wrote. I think you have some assumptions that I don't understand or have; There definitely looks like some misunderstanding is afoot here.
Technically I find systemd to be abhorent, but I don't see how it violates the four freedoms. Please enlighten me if they do. I also wonder what is wrong with the four freedoms? I mean, I think what I understand Ludovic is intending when he says GuixSD is the emacs of operating systems is very important (the ease of exercising the four freedoms); less we end up with docker in vagrant in docker in vagrant in docker ontop of hardware to be able to run a web browser. But if people want to develop and use those kinds of systems I don't see a problem with free software. I see a bunch of other problems, but I have guixsd and don't care to much what everyone chooses (though I'll tell them how wonderful my/our system is). On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:33:52 +0200 Svante Signell <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, I'm not subscribed to this list. Hopefully this reply comes in > correct thread order. > > > Hi, > > > > > And the same happens again: He does not condemn systemd, calling it Free > > > Software due to the GPL license. In my opinion systemd is violating one > > > of the 4 > > > freeedoms of GPL: Freedom 1 (as well as the *NIX and KISS philosophy) > > > * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it > > > does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the > > > source code is a precondition for this. > > > > > > Freedom 1 gives you the right to change the software for yourself, but > > not the right to force others to change their version. > > What made you think of that? I've not said anything about "forcing others to > change their version" > > > > It's really time for a re-definition of Free Software, not only basing > > > such definitions solely on the license at hand. It is also a matter of > > > freedoms > > of the users of software. Especially in view of that most Free Software > > nowadays is developed by commercial players, having their own agenda, > > actively alienating their users (and non-paid, spare time developers). > > > > > > > Do you mean software, where the users can dictate the author what should > > be changed/made in its software? > > Again, I don't understand you. Never heard about software where the users > have any say in what's being developed except when they pay for it. And as > you know money rules. But one fact is that corporations hiring people to > develop software are doing that for a purpose (and they all have their own > agenda). > >
