The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
* Andreas R. [2021-04-21 09:39]: > In this mail I try to provide an overview of the "GNU Assembly" > initiative in relation to the GNU project. Do you represent the "anti-GNU Assembly"? Was the "anti-GNU Assembly" approved by GNU project? Sorry, I see that as incitement to split the GNU project. This group of people wish to say they represent the whole GNU project and they present themselves as speakers for GNU project. It is clear that their activities have not been coordinated with RMS, and it is also clear from the list of people that they belong to defamatory group of people. People who are in conflict over their own good deeds, their contributions to GNU project, their former respect and admiration to RMS, and their later disloyalty and defamation of the founder. Surely, they (like children) seek to have a group similar like a family as "how it was" and they need to gather together. However, those are personal problems, unrelated to GNU project. It is not quite just and fair to call it "GNU Assembly" neither "anti-GNU Maintainers" as they do not represent the whole GNU project neither all numbers of maintainers. People are free to organize how they wish and want. But we have some unspoken social agreements and also legal agreements. This domain gnu.tools and "Gatherung under New Umbrella" and Code of Conduct for GNU are disrespectful attempt to take over the main GNU project. Do you understand how many protests and pointers will be there? People will be writing on their pages and websites and will be protesting. This is causing division, protests, disagreements. When some of those people is personally disgruntled why they need to tear community apart with their personal issues? > - The main page, https://gnu.tools/, states: > > "Welcome to the GNU Assembly!" > > Currently the Assembly consists of GNU maintainers. As such using "GNU" > as part of "GNU assembly" is not misleading or inappropriate. They are a > subset of GNU, and distinguish themselves from the larger GNU project by the > distinct qualifier "Assembly". > > "We write free software" where "free software" links to > https://gnu.tools/en/documents/free-software/ IMHO, their definition is clearly infringing on FSF copyrights as they have taken it from: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html whereby the page is licensed under Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2019, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc. -- Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License; and where they have made a derivative. They say: "The GNU Assembly produces free software — also referred to as “libre software”, “liberating software”, or “open source” -- and further they say "These criteria were spelled out by Richard M. Stallman in the 1980s" -- which is incorrect, as Stallman never used "Open Source" -- it is clear misrepresentation of free software philosophy. It is obvious that they do not support GNU project. It is obvious that they want to use "GNU" as a trademark which does not belong to them. https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc=4808:iwpwdz.2.17 > As far as I can tell, their definition of "free software", other than their > off-by-one > numbering is in line with the official definition at > > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html The above hyperlink is not on their website. They did not hyperlink once to GNU project. That is splinter group that deviates definitions because they are in disagreements. > Their definition is less complete, but seems to contain no > contradictions or misleading information. It is not so. Now they even mention "open source" with a footnote how it does not convey meaning of the freedom. GNU project never mentions "open source" in such context. > "Here’s what “GNU” means to us:" > > The bulk of the main page is a set of novelty "backronyms" of GNU to > illustrate > their purpose, none of which are in direct conflict with the actual GNU > project. They, as much as anyone, should be free to fill in what the GNU > project means to them and use and contribute to it as they see fit, even > as a self-defined exclusive club. That is not so. GNU project is on https://www.gnu.org -- and that is group of people among larger group of people that have contributed to GNU project; however, they are not defining the GNU project. GNU project we have to understand it, is private project of RMS, supported and could be protected by the FSF, with the independent management of FSF. GNU project is not on gnu.tools neither on any of other gnu-related domains, it is just on www.gnu.org > The main page includes a link, under "Governance, Not Unilateralism": > -https://gnu.tools/en/documents/social-contract/ Of course that is a reference to their disagreements to GNU project. However, nobody forbid them develop free software and contribute to each other. Their misrepresentation and disrespect however cannot have positive impact on community. > "GNU Social Contract 1.0" > >
Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
Dear Andreas, I hope you're well buddy. The GNU Assembly is NOT a subset of the GNU Project or the Free Software Foundation. I don't know what their intentions are, if they're advocating for free software philosophy I support their purpose but that doesn't mean it's OK to in any form or way make people avoid the GNU Project. Please don't post about it here as it most likely hurts the GNU Project. The gnu-misc-discuss mailing list is for "General GNU project and free software discussions" as stated on lists.gnu.org. What they state on their website somehow implies that the GNU Project has a hostile environment and is toxic to people. Saying their community is harassment-free (which is basically impossible because they can punish those who harass not prevent them) implies that the GNU Project is a place for harassment. The GNU Assembly got attention exactly after the recent false and based-on-lies claims against RMS and I believe how they wrote their code of conduct is in fact pointing to those controversies. Please stop it. You're free to talk about anything but if it's hurting the GNU Project or the Free Software Foundation, you have to stop doing it here. If you want to help them, I believe they have their own mailing lists. Thank you. Please note that I am an individual and I'm not talking on behalf of the GNU Project, the Free Software Foundation, or RMS. On 18/04/2021 23:57, Andreas R. wrote: In this mail I try to provide an overview of the "GNU Assembly" initiative in relation to the GNU project. - The main page, https://gnu.tools/, states: "Welcome to the GNU Assembly!" Currently the Assembly consists of GNU maintainers. As such using "GNU" as part of "GNU assembly" is not misleading or inappropriate. They are a subset of GNU, and distinguish themselves from the larger GNU project by the distinct qualifier "Assembly". "We write free software" where "free software" links to https://gnu.tools/en/documents/free-software/ As far as I can tell, their definition of "free software", other than their off-by-one numbering is in line with the official definition at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html To wit: -The freedom to run the program as the user wishes, for any purpose. -The freedom to study how the program works and to change it to suit their needs. -The freedom to redistribute it. -The freedom to distribute copies of modified versions. and -The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). -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. -The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). -The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Their definition is less complete, but seems to contain no contradictions or misleading information. "Here’s what “GNU” means to us:" The bulk of the main page is a set of novelty "backronyms" of GNU to illustrate their purpose, none of which are in direct conflict with the actual GNU project. They, as much as anyone, should be free to fill in what the GNU project means to them and use and contribute to it as they see fit, even as a self-defined exclusive club. The main page includes a link, under "Governance, Not Unilateralism": -https://gnu.tools/en/documents/social-contract/ "GNU Social Contract 1.0" This is clearly erroneous as there is no such thing as a "GNU Social Contract". This would be trivial to fix by renaming it to "GNU Assembly Social contract", but given its history it's unlikely that those who drafted it would be willing to amend it. The main page includes a link, under "This Group’s Not Uniform ": -https://gnu.tools/en/documents/code-of-conduct/ Even though the GNU project has no code of conduct, it should be okay for any self organising subgroup of GNU maintainers to adopt one. As far as I can tell, there are no references or indications that this document would apply to anything or anyone outside of the Assembly. From their mailing list: There are some mentions of "the former GNU project" and "old GNU" by individual members of the list, but these might be slightly provocative ways distinguish between their initiative and the GNU project as a whole. https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assem...@lists.gnu.tools/thread/3PDVUTCKG33R3KY7XCV5TKQUMIW5NMWC/ https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assem...@lists.gnu.tools/thread/JUBZSTVY2LLSXDPKOMOSQBN7VYJ6JN5G/ There are however other claims of direct usurpation of the GNU Project on their mailing list, such as: "by creating this assembly, we affirmed that GNU Project leadership is in our hands, collectively, as maintainers and contributors to GNU."
Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
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 is their purpose) would be to rename to something entierly different.
Re: Continuation of my previous mail
Dear Rohit, I hope you're well. I get from your statement that you're angry about controversies of RMS and your decision to install a malware named Windows is coming from that. I believe after 25 of years of interaction with the GNU operating system and Linux kernel, you've understood that the philosophy of the free software is for everyone, not only RMS. Even if you hate RMS, you can love yourself, respect yourself, and be free from malware and proprietary software by using a libre operating system. Best. On 19/04/2021 18:36, Rohit Dutt via General GNU project and free software discussions wrote: Hi, This is Rohit D from another account. I just wanted to post, with a heavy heart despite everything, that I have removed Linux and installed Windows. I gave Linux 25 years of my life. RMS, please don't harm any women. And obviously this holds true of all the computing community and every human being in general. Bye. Sent using Zoho Mail -- Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com) Libre culture activist and privacy advocate PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771 OpenPGP_0xDCB8F138B8651771_and_old_rev.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
On 4/18/21 3:27 PM, Andreas R. wrote: > Even though the GNU project has no code of conduct, it should be okay > for any self organising subgroup of GNU maintainers to adopt one. As far > as I can tell, there are no references or indications that this document > would apply to anything or anyone outside of the Assembly. Codes of Conduct are just Facist manifestos
Re: Continuation of my previous mail
* Rohit Dutt via General GNU project and free software discussions [2021-04-21 09:43]: > This is Rohit D from another account. I just wanted to post, with a > heavy heart despite everything, that I have removed Linux and > installed Windows. I gave Linux 25 years of my life. RMS, please > don't harm any women. And obviously this holds true of all the > computing community and every human being in general. RMS did not harm any woman. Please read: https://stallmansupport.org/ Please don't make personal attacks on GNU mailing lists, and observe the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html Though, I understand your good intentions, but not that I consider that as a general statement valid at all times, there are times of self-defense, both women and men may be criminals or attack each other, there are times when people harm each other beyond this context here. By the way, I have sent recently 1050+ offers for employment in East Africa and about 2 of them responded very rude, like in the sense that I am disrespecting them because I have sent them offer for employment. But they have published their offer to get a job, that is why I responded to their ad. This short story tells me that there will be people complaining about each and everything, including when one would start giving them money for free. Your analysis is incorrect. HEREBY, I AM ASKING YOU TO REVERT YOUR DECISION, REMOVE THAT WINDOZE, AND PUT GNU/LINUX ON IT... hahhahhahahah n, I ma just joking. What did you expect? Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
Bad actor knowingly submitting incorrect kernel patches pulls "intimidating" and "unwelcome" rhetoric.
Would you believe it? "I will not be sending any more patches due to the attitude that is not only unwelcome but also intimidating to newbies and non experts." Quoted in archived message here: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg737156.html also here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/yh%2ffm%2ftsbmczz...@kroah.com/ (Unfortunately, the message from which that is quoted is not available in the archives. I suspect that the list in question rejected it or didn't get it for some reason, but Greg got it directly via CC.)
