Re: Free Software and the New Sexism
This is off-topic, unkind and beyond unsuitable for this list. Please drop it, all of you.
Re: Free Software and the New Sexism
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 patch is so important, the best thing you can do is make your own version of the program and maintain it to your own standards. You can remove, or add anything you want then. That is what free software means.
Re: Free Software and the New Sexism
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).
Re: Free Software and the New Sexism
> 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 Software movement does not care who you are. > Free software as such cannot be sexist, but that you do not wish to > partake in communities where who you are is imaterial, to the point > where you do not wish to spread the message that computer rights > matters is sad. Hopefully you will reconsider, and fight for both > your right and other peoples rights to use a computer -- irrespective > of what other values or opinions you hold. It would be irresponsible to recommend someone to get involved with a group of people who may harass, bully, or verbally abuse them. Something the GNU project does not do and has never done -- we wish to include everyone, and trying to get rid of people isn't something that is beneficial to our cuase -- but just like the above -- it would be equally irresponsible, and possibly worsem to subjguate someones right. Whom you hang around with is up to you, but you cannot change the situation of a non-free program. But lets keep this list on-topic, which means discussing the development of the GNU projecs, its software, and free software in general.
Re: Free Software and the New Sexism
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, to the point where you do not wish to spread the message that computer rights matters is sad. Hopefully you will reconsider, and fight for both your right and other peoples rights to use a computer -- irrespective of what other values or opinions you hold.
Re: recognition of Dr Richard Stallman, Honorary Debian Developer
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.
Re: New utility for output monitoring: pw ("PipeWatch")
How is this different from the pv command that is quite standard on GNU/Linux systems?
Re: Happy 69th Birthday to Richard Stallman
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).
Re: cURL author receives rude LogJ4 security inquiry
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 project, have always used the later definition of the term, and this is also what is meant when talking about Unix, BSD, etc.
Re: Richard Stallman should be reinstated to President of the FSF
It is best not to feed the troll, it already has been banned from some GNU lists as it is since it cannot behave.
Re: "Freedom" is really the wrong word
> 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 non-free. Non-free _software_ does harm to society, and users. There is little to dispute. In either case, this list is for serious discussion about the GNU project, etc, and not trolling -- please find some other place to do that.
Re: "Freedom" is really the wrong word
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 painters from modifying the chemical composition to allow mixture with other paints.
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Court�s - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
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 GNU project is structured and maintained.
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Court�s - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
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.
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Court�s - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
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 nice if you stopped misrepresenting the GNU project, specially since neither you, nor anyone who is part of this out-group speak for the GNU project.
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
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 GNU project are better dome elsewhere -- not here. This isn't jean-louis-discuss.
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: SSPL or server side public license, GNU better update the AGPL
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.
Re: SSPL or server side public license, GNU better update the AGPL
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.
Re: How to ensure not to fall into new Webassembly trap - was Re: Web versions
>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 recommend to solve the problem > in a different manner than try and verify all running code in the > world. How? I have proposed how I think it should be implemented. So why not go forward and try implementing it? You could post a call for help here and see if you can find people who are able to help you.
Re: How to ensure not to fall into new Webassembly trap - was Re: Web versions
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 recommend to solve the problem in a different manner than try and verify all running code in the world. RMS has to get involved on this, as to devise a method how to make sure that Webassembly programs are free software. Why don't you take it up and try to devise this method? It would not only be useful for web browsers, but programs in general. A white list of websites offering Webassembly as free software could be compiled as well. It is easier to simply deal with the problem by avoiding running random code automagically. But if you think such a list is possible, would you like to start working on it? Firefox is already warning users of abusive websites reported by users, which run Webassembly. If you can convince the firefox developers to do it, it sounds like it would be useful.
Re: Web versions
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) cannot -- since the web browser runs the program before I can do so. Level of verification is never perfect, regardless of the type of software. How do I know that software delivered in Guix or Parabola GNU OS is free software? I do not know, I can just assume as developers claim to be so, and OS-es are endorsed by FSF. They don't only claim it, they also have policies that implement what things are added. Additionally, you can download the software before you execute it. You speak of verification, but there is none when it comes to pasting a URL into a web browser. Making it easy to run non-free software is not something that is useful. The reset of your message goes into tangets, and so I won't answer it. You also again confuse that the issue is webassembly, it is not. It is how it is used, which is like Javascript.
Re: Web versions
[...] 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 will see the license text and can decide what to do before running the program. Had non-free software been irrelevant, web browsers executing random code (if we can wish for a world where non-free software is irrelevant, we can wish for software without security issues :), then the Javascript trap wuldn't have been a trap.
Re: Web versions
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. Javascript and Webassembly (or maybe more specifically, web browsers) facilitate the issue but running unknown code so trivially from someone else. I am sure we could find examples of where DRM can be put to good use...
Re: Web versions
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 decision if you wish to run it or not, e.g., if it is free software or not by looking at whatever tar-ball it came with, examining the license, etc. That is not normally the case with Javascript or Webassembly -- when you access the program, you're already executing it
Re: Web versions
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 / Webassembly works when you access a URL in a web browser where it? >There are now many Javascript application such as notes, where all >users' data remain in the browser, nothing is stored on the remote >server. That is good development. > > It is not, since such a program could just as well be run locally, > without the dependancy on someone else infrastructure. If that server > goes away, you're shit out of luck. I am sure you are mistaken there. I said, there are now applications (at least I know about them now), that run quite everything on your computer, through browser. So there is no server dependency. But you wrote "remote server", which is it? The whole disucssion is about _HOW_ technology is used, not _WHAT_ technology is used. That is one good example. You can edit notes and save it, all locally, it works offline. I don't think anyone claimed that one cannot find examples where something still is ethically sound, running in a web browser, and in Javascript or some other language. The issue is that this is not the intent, or how Javascript / Webassembly is mainly used. So why bring up such examples? It is not the issue here, it is not the issue of the Javascript trap either.
Re: Web versions
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 they often do not respect the user's freedoms, as even if the software is under Free license terms, technical issues can make running a modified version difficult or impossible. Indeed. Therefore: Porting to "the Web" is simply not practical or appropriate for most GNU software. This does not exclude the possibility of writing useful Free software for "the Web" but the GNU project is focused on the GNU operating system. The GNU operating system is not supposed to depend on external network resources for routine operation. I believe that "Who Does That Server Really Serve?" better applies to these issues than "The JavaScript Trap" does: the former warns against relying on systems outside of the user's control, even if those systems are also running Free software, while the latter applies to a widespread means of "sneaking" non-free software into otherwise-Free environments under the user's proverbial nose. Very good point, I forgot about that article.
Re: Web versions
Please use a kinder tone on this list, your language is simply not acceptable here.
Re: Web versions
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.
Re: Web versions
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 hardware from someone else). But the rest of your message is conflating issues, what Gobble does isn't pertinent here, nor what the GDPR says, or GitBlob, or people violating licenses (which can be a good thing, if those licenses are unjust!) so I'm having a hard time following it or responding to it. Lets try to stick to one topic, and not fan out so much? That is, running software in a web browser that you download from someone elses server. That some people will not care about their rights is not something we can fix, people will do what people will do. But what the GNU project, and the FSF can and do is highlight these issues by taking an extra step There are now many Javascript application such as notes, where all users' data remain in the browser, nothing is stored on the remote server. That is good development. It is not, since such a program could just as well be run locally, without the dependancy on someone else infrastructure. If that server goes away, you're shit out of luck.
Re: Web versions
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).
Re: Web versions
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, it is how it is used that is the issue. So again, this is all nicley explained in for example, the Javascript trap.
Re: Web versions
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 can get caught up in where they do not know if the software (web page) accessed is really free software or not, and start depending on it without any idea that they have even been caught. Compare this with normal software, which you have to at download, with that comes a small threshold for investigating about the program. If If i just point you to http://example.com/foo you can't (easily) see if it is free software or not before you've run the program. Web browsers make it so trivial these days to run any random code and it is very easy to start depending on software you do not control anymore -- without even noticing it. Could you make this free software? Sure, but that isn't the point here. Webassembly already exists. People will start making free software for it anyway. It is good platform for delivery of software. If something exists, or not -- is simply a tanget. Javascript _also_ exists, and there is lots of free software that is written Javascript.
Re: Web versions
... 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. Which is exactly the same argument that can be made for Webassembly. Oftn Javascript is so obfuscated that it can just as well be binary. And as long as people are unwilling to read it, I'll happily point it out.
Re: Web versions
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.
Re: Web versions
> 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 Javascript can be used in a way that honors the four freedoms, the FSF's position should be to encourage *those* ways, and discourage *other* ways. Discouraging the technology itself is, IMHO, outside the FSF's scope. The FSF and the GNU project have often recommended against using various technologies becuase they reduce the freedom of users, it is perfectly within the scope of what their mission is. One such scope is limiting Javascript use/Webassembly, and recommending users to not depend on that specific technology. Again, the Javascript trap is a good place to start ...
Re: Web versions
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. However, other people use that same technology in other ways. It is not the technology that is evil, it's how it's used that may be evil.
Re: Web versions
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 different story not directly related to webassembly at all. The same is absolutley not true for Javascript or Webassembly, it is nigh impossible to download the full set of scripts and other code to run it locally. And, again -- it is running code (binary, obfuscated, or source) from someone else machine. You have no idea if the code you got is free software or not, it is a binary blob that automatically runs on your computer. I suggest you read the Javascript trap. Have you tried running emacs on a C64 recently? Emacs has never run on a C64. > The suggestion in this thread was to make GNU port to webassembly, and > then be run in a web browser, from someone elses machine. No, it was not: " ince WebAssembly is now a reality, maybe you guys should get to making the browser versions of LL your software? " In other words, exactly what I wrote.
Re: Web versions
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 from someone elses computer? The later is something that is ill suited, and not valuable at all since it subjugates users rights.
Re: Web versions
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 form of SaSS) you are at the mercy of whoever is hosting the program to run it. Maybe even depending on that site for storing your data. The issue is _intent_ of how these things are to be used -- depriving users of how they can run their programs. The suggestion in this thread was to make GNU port to webassembly, and then be run in a web browser, from someone elses machine. In my opinion question is if that all is free software. Not if it runs remotely. That it is free software is a side issue. Sometimes the issues of software freedom are not just about the four freedoms.
Re: Web versions
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 Javascript and Webassembly (in the normal/intended case). The other issue is that the remote party effectivley controls _what_ you run, which is not the case with software you run from your own computer.
Re: Web versions
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.
Re: Web versions
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 ...
Re: Web versions
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.
Re: Web versions
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. Specifically, Webassembly is an even more obfuscated form of Javascript, putting users rights at risk as to how they can run, study, redistribute, and modify the programs that they run on their computers. You can read more about it here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
Re: Web versions
That is utterly uncalled for, and unacceptable on this list, if you have nothing useful to say, please refrain from sending such nonsense here.
Re: GPL violations and DMCA enforcements on Github
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" by copyright assignments.
Re: GPL violations and DMCA enforcements on Github
>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 in the least -- copyright > assignments would not have helped here. Even the FSF would have to > comply with a DMCA notice just as any other entity in the USA. That I understand. Yet the risk probability is minimized down to almost nothing. You do not show that, nor is that what you claimed. Copyright assignments have no bearing on if DMCA enforcment is reduced or increased.
Re: GPL violations and DMCA enforcements on Github
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 in the least -- copyright assignments would not have helped here. Even the FSF would have to comply with a DMCA notice just as any other entity in the USA.
Re: Positive contribution to ensure backward compatibility
Very nice suggestions! Thank you.
Re: Concerns about GNU Bison maintenance.
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 mention many different tangets, I'm not really able to follow them all... For Bison related questions, it is best to ask the Bison developers. For suggestions to people that make binary packages for GNU/Linux system, it is best to ask them directly than here. I think calling the software we work on for radioactive is very harsh which is why I'm not replying to the rest of the email -- I'd like to urge you to read the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines (https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html) before continuing the discussion.
Re: Concerns about GNU Bison maintenance.
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 required to use a 10 year old version of Bison, then the best thing to do is to commit the generated files into VCS -- this is really no different than for GNU Autoconf/Automake. It also seems that the maintainer is _very_ quick to fix issues, it would be an impossible task to ask maintainers to test every single version released on every single GNU/Linux system. Not only that, but Ubuntu is a non-free GNU/Linux system, and our priorities are for 100% free GNU/Linux systems. You mention POSIX, but we do not follow POSIX slavishly. We are quite free to ignore what it says. Even so, GNU Bison does implement it to the limits it makes sense. Overall, I think your characterization is unfair, the maintainer acknowledges the pain you are experiencing, is trying to find a way forward and is doing excellent work on making GNU bison better and better for each release. Lastly, it think it may be a good idea for at least every major release of Bison to be regression tested by building several GNU/Linux distributions from scratch with it. A distro build is a great test suite for a toolchain component. If that is available, why would you only rely on the tool's own limited suite when releasing? Such an infrastructure would not solve the build issue experienced here, we cannot host Ubuntu in good conscious since that would work against our goals of creating fully free systems. It would also take time from the maintainer to keep this infrastructure up, time that I think we all can agree is better spent working on GNU Bison proper. But I am sure that if you'd like to set this up, and test versions of Bison as they either come out, or are nearing release that those results would be very welcome. The GNU project is wholy dependant on volunteers doing the work needed for things to become better.
Re: Bandwidth-hungry services burden the internet
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 year are for some reason gone when the same search is conducted. This seems like a different issue though. Google is not you friend, and you should not trust them.
Re: Shannon Dosemagen and the FSF
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 as the GNU project. Specially in its infancy. Later, the FSF has broadend its scope, and several of the issues you raise are issues that the FSF has concentrated its efforts towards. https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/ has a very good run down on current, and previous campaigns. For example, with regard to privacy: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/surveillance/
Re: Shannon Dosemagen and the FSF
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.
Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract
> > 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, they hold all our assets, and they keep lists of people who may use those resources for which purposes. Raising money and being involved in governance are two different things, and one does not entail the other. There are several non-FSF venues for raising money, but like the FSF they are not involved in GNU governance which is at the discretion of the chief GNUisance. The FSF is the legal entity which runs GNU. The FSF doesn't "run" the GNU project, they do alot of important legal work for us, but we have many projects that are not copyrighted by the FSF. There are many projects that get their funding from other entities as well. We should coordinate governance issues with the FSF. There are lots of issues which are the shared responsibility of GNU volunteers and the FSF. This we really refers to your gruop, and not the GNU project or the governance structure of it with chief GNUisance, who already does this type of work with the FSF. The only responsibility that GNU maintainers have is to follow GNU policies, and some basic legal obligations toward the FSF so that paper work is in order or not wrong. > The FSF has no such responsibility. They provide infastructure. Given that GNU is a program of the FSF I do think they have such a responsibility to all GNU volunteers. The GNU project is not a program of the FSF, the FSF _sponsors_ our work. You confuse the historical context, the GNU project existed before the FSF, and the initial goal of the FSF was to support the GNU project in its work to create a free operating system. The FSF encourages adopting an anti-harassment guide and I think we should take that much more serious: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/contribute The FSF and the GNU project are two different entities, what the FSF does or doesn't is better directed to the FSF and not here. The GNU project has decided on a different strategy on the matter with the GNU Kind Communicate Guidelines (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html).
Re: GNU/Guix
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. Question relating to Guix and their naming are better directed to the Guix developers.
Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool
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 in the Structure and Administration of the GNU Project document: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.html .
Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract
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 [*]. Now now, Mark, that is just untrue. It is the GNU project that decided that you, and Carlos, were moderating in a immensly biased manner, disgarding perfectly valid discussion topics because you personally disagreed with them, it wasn't a decision done by Mike or Brandon. The one sideness of your discussion is getting quite silly, you refuse to address even the simple fact that you do not want show what the GNU project has to say. You ignore any questions to that effect, and instead spread utter untruths. I think calling you group for the Manor farm is quite apt, only those whom you agree with will be heard. Four legs bad, two legs good. The FSF keeps ignoring our calls for a neutral discussion space. Again you forget that the FSF isn't responsible for the GNU project, and the GNU project did provide such neutral discussion spaces. For example this list, and several internal lists.
Re: State of the GNUnion 2020
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 Project. And the GNU project rejected it. For very good reasons. So it isn't at all contrary > 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. May I remind you that we have been elaborating this text from the start on this list, and that this openness is indeed one of our goals? Then please answer why you are not mentioning the stance of the GNU project. I've asked this several times, over now several weeks, and silence. It is written by some GNU maintainers, it is not one that is representative of the GNU project -- since as GNU maintainers you do not speak for the GNU project, I suggest you read Richard Stallman's email on that topic, or the governance document how the GNU projet actually works. So calling it a GNU document or pretending that it is, since that is obviously not true, is just silly.
Re: State of the GNUnion 2020
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 help improving the discussion signal level by not assuming that a person said/mean/thought or didn't, it is neither helpful nor constructive. If you are unclear as to what they meant, ask them politley instead of pretending that you understand their argument. It is also unhelpful to constantly start tangets, the point being addressed wasn't what is or isn't something about the GNU project, but the specific text being circulated.
Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed
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 participate.
Re: State of the GNUnion 2020
> 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 issue?
Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed
> 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 "members of the Manor farm". You know well what I wrote, and I'm quite disapointed that you are trying to purport it as something quite different. There is a stark difference from having an opinion, and being a deciding factor just because of having a title or lacking a title. If you feel something is unclear, I suggest you read the the Structure and Administration of the GNU Project (https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.html).
Re: some gnu maintainers more equal than others?
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 GNU project isn't requiring nor will require anyone to pledge their allegiance to anything particular. This has been answered with a false statement, and then resounding silence. They happily elect to accept non-GNU maintainers to support their document, but are quick to dismiss other GNU hackers and users when they have a opinion that differs from them. Of course, they can host or claim anything they wish, but it is all quite hard to take Manor farm seriously when they claim that this is a document by and for GNU maintainers, and they activley refuse to show the opinons of those they claim to represent. Are some GNUs more equal than others at Manor Farm...
Re: State of the GNUnion 2020
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 user's freedom". I am not clear what the meaning a "software system" that "respects user's freedom" means here, how does the _operating_system_ (assuming it is already free software) respect user rights? That seems to be a technical goal, say by allowing easier ways to modify source code, writting "simpler" code that is easily understood by others, or by reducing obstacles like not needing a root user to do specific actions. We might even decide on technical solution that might not at all lead to that -- say by eskewing ways that make it easier to load third-party modules in the inevitable situation that it might lead to propietery software doing something nasty. While lofty goals worth striding for, I think they are slightly different than what the GNU project, and the GNU system are about.
Re: ru...@mrbrklyn.com: Please remove me from your hang...@nylxs.com or vill...@mrbrklyn.com mailing lists
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 fair to say that ru...@mrbrklyn.com's behavior is tolerated. You are showing bad faith, you have no idea what has or hasn't been done. The behaviour is absolutley not tolerated, and that has been made clear over and over again. But like obviously bad behaviour, unkind one like your accusation of moderators and the administrators is also one that we strive to not have here.
Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract
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 anyone who is interested in the GNU project. We won't limit who is allowed to subscribe, since we wish to welcome anyone -- even people like yourself. Your behaviour and attitude is already leading to a slippery slope, you not only wish to dictate what GNU maintainers must support, but now you wish to limit discussion to those whom you find acceptable. That is not something the GNU project will do. Anyone who wishes to be a GNU "stakeholder" is exactly that. If you wish to have discussion amongst GNNU maintainers, we already have such lists in place. All of this you know perfectly well. It is possible to ban people who have a pattern of problematic behavior. It too would go a long way to solving this problem. You have the power to do this, also. You already assume that this isn't the case already. And as you can see, that had the exact opposite result -- we cannot do anything when people harvest email addresses and sends them unsolicited emails or subscribes to lists -- this counts double for you, Andy. It is possible to be more vigorous in moderating. You and Brendan took it upon yourselves the task of moderating this list, so this also is within your power. And yet for some reason you used this power to let the message referred to in https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00441.html go through. You make the bad faith assumption that the list is already not moderated heavily. If a user has not sent anything notoriously garbage like, they will not be moderated. That does not stop them from sending garbage later, when they are no longer under moderation.
Re: Moderation
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 kinder tone in the future.
Re: ru...@mrbrklyn.com: Please remove me from your hang...@nylxs.com or vill...@mrbrklyn.com mailing lists
> 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 of unkind communication. It isn't tolerated, but it is also something that those administrating gnu-misc-discuss@ (or any GNU list) can do little about. You've been forcefully subscribed to another list, the GNU project is not in control of it. We cannot filter who sends what to you specifically which is the case here.
Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Harrassment on this list
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 through in quick order when we put in extra efforts to minimimize garbage here. You cannot have it both ways. The moderators are doing their best to keep things in order, but you are not helping it by constantly accusing them and berating them in this manner. It is a thankless job, show some respect.
Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool
> 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 place > to find specific policies and guidelines that are mandatory to follow. > That is what I alluded to when I said "maintaining a GNU project > according to the guidelines". I don't know how things are on your > plate, but for me following those guidelines takes most of my free > time, and requires some non-trivial efforts. Of course, but these are mostly technicalities. Richardâs point here is that weâre expected to do nothing beyond following those policies, and even the guidelines can be sidestepped. That isn't at all RMS's point, you know that quite well. It has always been encouraged to go further supporting the GNU project, but that is quite different than forcing people to hold those values. >> The GNU Social Contract is about changing that. > > How can you change that if the document is voluntary? Endorsers will know what to expect from each other and people who work with them will have a clearer picture, too. That is already documented in the various documents that we as GNU maintainers agree to when we are apointed. The goal of this document is to state the core values GNU maintainers and uploaders and contributors who have endorsed it are committed to uphold. It is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors, and a pledge to the broader free software community. The GNU project doesn't force anyone to adher to a specific set of values, so it isn't really your place to decide what those values are for GNU maintainers. If you and I both state our commitment to upholding that set of values, then we have something in common that we can build on. We know weâre on the same page. The commitment is to work on the GNU system. Not to share the same set of values -- the GNU project encourages anyone to join, not just people who agree with each other.
Re: Harrassment on this list
>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 situation by helping to lead by example. Like you I too have been getting quite interesting and creative emails yet I persist in the hope of everyone joining our cause, even those who disagree. I'd rather have everyone work on the GNU project than making it an echo chamber of voices that never disagree -- with that it means one has to accept disagreements and that sometimes people loose their cool.
Re: Harrassment on this list
> 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 see past it -- be the better person.
Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract
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/). So this means that moderation has been successful, but the way email works there is little to nothing one can do when one is CCed... I also now realize that part of the response had to do with the bizarre "hangout" mailing list that was created to get some postings to many people on this list without going through this list. Alas moderators are not in control of what other people do on non-GNU mailing lists, like mass subscribing or mailing people against their will. :-(
Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed
Manor farm is the poorly run farm by the evil Mr. Jones in Animal Farm by George Orwell.
Re: Harrassment on this list
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 -- that is an extreme solution to a easily solvable problem but one that takes a bit more effort from all of us. Moderation is the last resort, and one that is not taken lightly since it is a ethically and morally slippery slope.
Re: Endorsing the GNU social contract
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 GNU system.
some gnu maintainers more equal than others?
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 statement, and then resounding silence. They happily elect to accept non-GNU maintainers to support their document, but are quick to dismiss other GNU hackers and users when they have a opinion that differs from them. Of course, they can host or claim anything they wish, but it is all quite hard to take Manor farm seriously when they claim that this is a document by and for GNU maintainers, and they activley refuse to show the opinons of those they claim to represent. Are some GNUs more equal than others at Manor Farm...
Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool
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 stands for, seeing that it isn't a GNU document to begin with. What the GNU project stands for can be read at www.gnu.org, or more to the point https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.htm Get it while it is still hot!
Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed
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 not a GNU maintainer. This list is for anyone interested in discussing anything related to the GNU project, even disagreements with the GNU project.
Re: lese majeste
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 follow the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines, and help in creating a welcoming atmosphere not by asking for people to be moderated but by encouraging kindness.
[r...@gnu.org: Structure and Administration of the GNU Project]
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]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
People know that each GNU package has one or more maintainers
appointed by the GNU Project. People mostly don't know about the
committees that carry out most of the administration of the project.
We have now published a complete description of the administrative
structure of the GNU Project.
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.html
--
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
--
If you have a working or partly working program that you'd like
to offer to the GNU project as a GNU package,
see https://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html.--- End Message ---
===File ~/gnu-structure.org=
#+title:The Structure and Administration of the GNU Project
#+options: author:nil html-postamble:nil num:nil timestamp:nil toc:nil
#+options: -:nil ':t
#+startup: showall
#+macro:mdash @@html:@@
#+begin_export html
by Brandon Invergo and Richard Stallman
Version 1.0.1
#+end_export
#+begin_announcement
An [[https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.org][Org version]] of this document
is also available.
#+end_announcement
#+begin_comment
Canonical version: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.html
Copyright © 2020 Brandon Invergo and Richard Stallman
Released under Creative Commons Attribution Noderivatives Licenses 4.0
#+end_comment
#+begin_export html
#+end_export
The GNU Project develops and maintains the
[[https://www.gnu.org/gnu/about-gnu.html][GNU operating system]].
Through this work, and other related activities, the GNU Project
advocates and promotes
[[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html][software freedom]], the core
philosophy of the
free software movement.
An operating system consists of many software components that together
make a computer do useful jobs. It includes code for low-level
functionality, such as the kernel and drivers, plus system libraries,
as well as the programs (utilities, tools, applications, and games)
that users explicitly run. The GNU operating system comprises
software across this entire spectrum. Many of the programs are
specifically developed and released by the GNU Project; these are
termed "GNU packages". The GNU system also includes components that
are [[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html][free programs]] released
by other developers, outside of the GNU
Project.
Just as the programs composing an operating system must work together
coherently, the GNU Project must operate coherently. Most of the work
consists of developing specific programs, but these programs are not
independent projects; they must fit well together to constitute the
GNU system we wish for. Therefore, over the course of decades, we
have developed structure for the project. None of it is new, but this
is the first time we have documented all of it in one place.
The Free Software Foundation provides many kinds of support
(facilities, services) to the GNU Project. How that works is outside
the scope of this document.
* Software Development Structure
:PROPERTIES:
:CUSTOM_ID: software-development-structure
:END:
Most of the GNU Project's activity consists of development of software
packages. Here is how GNU software development is structured.
** The Chief GNUisance
:PROPERTIES:
:CUSTOM_ID: chief-gnuisance
:END:
The GNU Project is led by the Chief GNUisance, Richard Stallman, the
founder of the project. The Chief GNUisance is responsible in
principle for all significant decisions, including the overall
philosophy and standards, and directs the project in carrying them
out. The Chief GNUisance dubs software packages as GNU packages, or
decommission one when necessary, and appoints their maintainers.
In practice, the Chief GNUisance delegates many of these decisions and
most of the tasks to others, and only rarely intervenes in the
specifics of development of a GNU package{{{mdash}}}and usually that
is with a suggestion.
** Assistant GNUisances
:PROPERTIES:
:CUSTOM_ID: assistant-gnuisances
:END:
This team, residing at [[mailto:maintain...@gnu.org][maintain...@gnu.org]], is
available as a first
point-of-contact for maintainers of GNU Software. They keep track of
development activity across the entire project, ensuring timely
releases, checking that the maintainers follow GNU's
[[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy][philosophy]] and
guidelines, and resolving any conflicts that might arise. They also
handle cases when a maintainer steps down or when a new volunteer
Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed
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.
Re: State of the GNUnion 2020
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 become irrelevant, or that the GNU project be forgotten. And I think everyone can also agree that there are groups that are working against it (see e.g. the whole idea of "ethical" licenses). There are probobly many questions to answer, but the way that the group of five are pushing it is activley harmful, and show the same behaviour as those groups trying to push for weakening free software.
Re: State of the GNUnion 2020
> > 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, the development activity of > individual projects is determined by individual project's members, and is > rarely affected by the actions of the leadership. The activity by itself, yes, but the choice of where to start a new project, or starting contributing an existing project, leadership does have a lot of importance. How does that have to do with the overall project leadership, which hasn't changed significantly over the years, and yet had significant growth in new projects for several decades (if we take the graphs by Wingo at face value). That speaks more to the fact that the GNU project leadership has no impact on project adaptation, or contributor activity. But rather it is a individual effort by each project maintainer.
Re: State of the GNUnion 2020
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 do not understand here: full inclusiveness can not work, there will always be some people you will be excluding one way or the other, voluntarily or not. Making sure that the choice of who you exclude gets written down seems important to me. I think it is understood quite well, which is different from having a different view on how to achive the end goal of a fun, and kind place to hack in. The GNU project takes a road which is slightly more bumpy, where we try to get everyone to play along together, and not to exclude them for whatever reasons. Since that is a road that is very slippery and only leads to very shaky reasoning, and it can can be seen very well here where one party refuses to even show the other side -- and that is not because of unkind behaviour from that side.
Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool
>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. So not only currently, but > also not in the future. Youâve made your point many times, but please, stop presenting the current situation as something that cannot possibly ever change and, consequently, should never be questioned. It is not a point I made, it is a point that the GNU project made. I suggest you read Chief GNUisance email, which raises the point of such raddical, and unfriendly changes -- I've attached the email for your persual if you missed it. What should be questioned is the echo chamber group that you are part of and have created, and you now demand people to be silent because you disagree with them. We can see this continued biased view in how you refuse to even host, or mention, what the actual stance of the GNU project is on the non-GNU anti-social edict website, and instead make up statements that clearly do not represent the GNU project. Indeed, I'm still waiting for a reply on why you refuse to what the GNU project is actually saying. I think itâs important for GNU hackers as a group to be able to reflect on the projectâs procedures and discuss whether/how to improve them. That is already the case, and GNU maintainers already do so in their technical role. ===File ~/whats-gnu-whats-not.text== Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:26:51 -0500 From: "Richard Stallman (Chief GNUisance)" To: r...@gnu.org Subject: What's GNU -- and what's not Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline The GNU Project is sending this message to each GNU package maintainer. You may have recently received an email asking you to review a document titled "GNU Social Contract" and then to endorse it or reject it. It does not entirely accord with the GNU Project's views. It was created by some GNU participants who are trying to push changes on the GNU Project. The message also proposed to "define" what it means to be a "member of GNU", and cited a web page presented as a "wiki for GNU maintainers", It may have given the impression that they were doing all those things on behalf of the GNU Project. That is not the case. The document, the wiki, and the proposed idea of "members" have no standing in the GNU Project, which is not considering such steps. The use of a domain not affiliated with GNU reflects this fact. GNU package maintainers have committed to do work to maintain and add to the GNU system, but not anything beyond that. We have never pressed contributors to endorse the GNU Project philosophy, or any other philosophical views, because people are welcome to contribute to GNU regardless of their views. To change that -- to impose such requirements -- would be radical, gratuitous, and divisive, so the GNU Project is not entertaining the idea. Likewise, we will not ask package maintainers to be "members" instead of volunteers. If you contribute to GNU, you are already a member of the GNU community. The wiki that they set up "for GNU maintainers" represents them, not the GNU Project. People are always free to publish what they think the GNU Project should do, but should not presume it will be accepted or followed by the GNU Project. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Re: Endorsement of the Social Contract 1.0
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.
Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool
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. So not only currently, but also not in the future.
Re: State of the GNUnion 2020
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 not call software for dead, or alive. Getting a program running again is quite possible, but a dead chicken quite the opposite.
Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract
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, isn't really what is relevant. What is relevant that this is the position of the GNU project. The GNU project hasn't declared that your initiative isn't supported, rather that it isn't an initiative by the GNU project nor an initative that the GNU project will do. So what has been said is the exact opposite of what you purport. So why don't you quote the statement verbatim? Or do you not wish to have a discussion which shows both sides fairly?
Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract
You promulgate the incorrect notion that the FSF appoints maintainers for GNU projects, this is false.
Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract
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 GNU project atually has to say on the matter. I've attached it again in case you missed it. Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:26:51 -0500 From: "Richard Stallman (Chief GNUisance)" To: r...@gnu.org Subject: What's GNU -- and what's not Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline The GNU Project is sending this message to each GNU package maintainer. You may have recently received an email asking you to review a document titled "GNU Social Contract" and then to endorse it or reject it. It does not entirely accord with the GNU Project's views. It was created by some GNU participants who are trying to push changes on the GNU Project. The message also proposed to "define" what it means to be a "member of GNU", and cited a web page presented as a "wiki for GNU maintainers", It may have given the impression that they were doing all those things on behalf of the GNU Project. That is not the case. The document, the wiki, and the proposed idea of "members" have no standing in the GNU Project, which is not considering such steps. The use of a domain not affiliated with GNU reflects this fact. GNU package maintainers have committed to do work to maintain and add to the GNU system, but not anything beyond that. We have never pressed contributors to endorse the GNU Project philosophy, or any other philosophical views, because people are welcome to contribute to GNU regardless of their views. To change that -- to impose such requirements -- would be radical, gratuitous, and divisive, so the GNU Project is not entertaining the idea. Likewise, we will not ask package maintainers to be "members" instead of volunteers. If you contribute to GNU, you are already a member of the GNU community. The wiki that they set up "for GNU maintainers" represents them, not the GNU Project. People are always free to publish what they think the GNU Project should do, but should not presume it will be accepted or followed by the GNU Project. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting
>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 my own posts to this list were delayed, sometimes by many hours Yes, and sometimes days because people have other things to do. There isn't any harm in such a delay either, people should have more patience. Lets please drop talks about censorship and banning of people, since neither things will occur here. If people can follow the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines and the guidelines for this list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss), then such messages will always go through no matter what. Even messages that criticize the GNU project, they are free to post here. So lets not fall into the same trap as those pushing for the anti-social edict, which tries enforce group think, and activley excludes contributors based on their opinon.
Re: gnu social construct 1.0 endorsement
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?
Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting
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 and obvious garbage -- the majority sent by a single person who is the one who setup the ghost list. Since they are constantly trying to subvert any means, it has meant that things pass through slowly, and sometimes garbage sneaks through. I suspect that people are also simply confused as to which list is which, making it look all crazy. Can there be a more efficient way to achieve this? Since the GNU project isn't in control of the ghost list, we can't do much to address that. :-( Do you have any suggestions on how to tackle this?
Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract
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 stance of the GNU project, verbatim, instead of misrepresenting the GNU project in this manner? Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:26:51 -0500 From: "Richard Stallman (Chief GNUisance)" To: r...@gnu.org Subject: What's GNU -- and what's not The GNU Project is sending this message to each GNU package maintainer. You may have recently received an email asking you to review a document titled "GNU Social Contract" and then to endorse it or reject it. It does not entirely accord with the GNU Project's views. It was created by some GNU participants who are trying to push changes on the GNU Project. The message also proposed to "define" what it means to be a "member of GNU", and cited a web page presented as a "wiki for GNU maintainers", It may have given the impression that they were doing all those things on behalf of the GNU Project. That is not the case. The document, the wiki, and the proposed idea of "members" have no standing in the GNU Project, which is not considering such steps. The use of a domain not affiliated with GNU reflects this fact. GNU package maintainers have committed to do work to maintain and add to the GNU system, but not anything beyond that. We have never pressed contributors to endorse the GNU Project philosophy, or any other philosophical views, because people are welcome to contribute to GNU regardless of their views. To change that -- to impose such requirements -- would be radical, gratuitous, and divisive, so the GNU Project is not entertaining the idea. Likewise, we will not ask package maintainers to be "members" instead of volunteers. If you contribute to GNU, you are already a member of the GNU community. The wiki that they set up "for GNU maintainers" represents them, not the GNU Project. People are always free to publish what they think the GNU Project should do, but should not presume it will be accepted or followed by the GNU Project. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract
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: r...@gnu.org Subject: What's GNU -- and what's not The GNU Project is sending this message to each GNU package maintainer. You may have recently received an email asking you to review a document titled "GNU Social Contract" and then to endorse it or reject it. It does not entirely accord with the GNU Project's views. It was created by some GNU participants who are trying to push changes on the GNU Project. The message also proposed to "define" what it means to be a "member of GNU", and cited a web page presented as a "wiki for GNU maintainers", It may have given the impression that they were doing all those things on behalf of the GNU Project. That is not the case. The document, the wiki, and the proposed idea of "members" have no standing in the GNU Project, which is not considering such steps. The use of a domain not affiliated with GNU reflects this fact. GNU package maintainers have committed to do work to maintain and add to the GNU system, but not anything beyond that. We have never pressed contributors to endorse the GNU Project philosophy, or any other philosophical views, because people are welcome to contribute to GNU regardless of their views. To change that -- to impose such requirements -- would be radical, gratuitous, and divisive, so the GNU Project is not entertaining the idea. Likewise, we will not ask package maintainers to be "members" instead of volunteers. If you contribute to GNU, you are already a member of the GNU community. The wiki that they set up "for GNU maintainers" represents them, not the GNU Project. People are always free to publish what they think the GNU Project should do, but should not presume it will be accepted or followed by the GNU Project. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0
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 that this does not reflect what offical stance of the GNU project. The goal of the document is to formulate a common core set of values for the GNU Project, on which we can jointly build to form a stronger community. It is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors, and a pledge to the broader free software community. Additionally, we think it can be a first step towards formalising a transparent and collective governance of the GNU Project. Since you are not the head of the GNU project, it is not in your capacity to decide what the values of the GNU project are. That you have resorted to unethical behaviour by harvesting private information, spreading falsehoods and that we haven't added this to the GNU project web site should make that quite clear.
