Re: GNU projects using GitHub.

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > > BTW, the right list for this is gnu-prog-discuss.

  > gnu-prog-discuss is a private list though:

That's ok.  This is a question of GNU Project policy,


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
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 projects using GitHub.

[Yuchen Pei]

Richard Stallman  writes:


BTW, the right list for this is gnu-prog-discuss.


gnu-prog-discuss is a private list though:

https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-prog-discuss>:

This list is an internal list to the GNU project. Only active 
GNU programmers and maintainers may join.


Is there a public list for this kind of discussion?

--
Best,
Yuchen

PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
  


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU projects using GitHub.

[Yuchen Pei]

Forgot a disclaimer that this is my personal opinion, just in case 
:)

Yuchen Pei  writes:


Greg Farough  writes:


On Mon, Oct 25 2021, Po Lu  wrote:


"Alfred M. Szmidt"  writes:


   I was asking for a clarification of GNU project policy.

   As I mentioned earlier,
https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html
   lists GitHub as unacceptable for hosting of GNU software.

That is your answer, what is there else to clarify?


Well, why there are 2 GNU projects developed on GitHub.


It's strongly discouraged, and we should try to persuade them 
to do
otherwise, but my understanding is that GNU maintainers are 
allowed

to
have repositories on GitHub. They already make other, similar
decisions on their own about the program they maintain.

The actual GNU maintainer policy document is linked below, in 
which

Savannah is recommended, but not mandated.




Thanks for the link.  I think hosting is not as big a problem as
development, which is mentioned briefly in other messages in 
this 
thread.  Developers and potential contributors shouldn't be 
required

to give up their freedom for development and discussions. The
maintainer policy document[1] at
 
also says:



Similarly, a GNU package should not require the use of non-free
software, including JavaScript, for the coordination of its
development. For example, please don’t use Transifex for 
translation

of your software because it requires your translators to use
non-free,
JavaScript-based editing tools. Instead, a service without any
ethical
concerns should be used, such as The Translation Project
(https://translationproject.org). 


Please don’t host discussions about your package in a service 
that

requires nonfree software. For instance, Google+ “communities”
require running a nonfree JavaScript program to post a message, 
so
they can’t be used in the Free World. Google Groups has the 
same
problem. To host discussions there would be excluding people 
who

live
by free software principles. 



--
Best,
Yuchen

PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
  


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU projects using GitHub.

[Yuchen Pei]

Greg Farough  writes:


On Mon, Oct 25 2021, Po Lu  wrote:


"Alfred M. Szmidt"  writes:


   I was asking for a clarification of GNU project policy.

   As I mentioned earlier,
https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html
   lists GitHub as unacceptable for hosting of GNU software.

That is your answer, what is there else to clarify?


Well, why there are 2 GNU projects developed on GitHub.


It's strongly discouraged, and we should try to persuade them to 
do
otherwise, but my understanding is that GNU maintainers are 
allowed to

have repositories on GitHub. They already make other, similar
decisions on their own about the program they maintain.

The actual GNU maintainer policy document is linked below, in 
which

Savannah is recommended, but not mandated.




Thanks for the link.  I think hosting is not as big a problem as 
development, which is mentioned briefly in other messages in this 
thread.  Developers and potential contributors shouldn't be 
required to give up their freedom for development and discussions. 
The maintainer policy document[1] at 
 
also says:



Similarly, a GNU package should not require the use of non-free
software, including JavaScript, for the coordination of its
development. For example, please don’t use Transifex for 
translation
of your software because it requires your translators to use 
non-free,
JavaScript-based editing tools. Instead, a service without any 
ethical

concerns should be used, such as The Translation Project
(https://translationproject.org). 


Please don’t host discussions about your package in a service 
that

requires nonfree software. For instance, Google+ “communities”
require running a nonfree JavaScript program to post a message, 
so

they can’t be used in the Free World. Google Groups has the same
problem. To host discussions there would be excluding people who 
live
by free software principles. 


--
Best,
Yuchen

PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
  


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU projects using GitHub.

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

It's not good that they use GitHub.  We do evaluate GitHub as bad, see
https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html, but we
don't have a rule saying "Don't use GitHub!"

Meanwhile, I think they both started using GitHub before we had published
even a criticism of it.

BTW, the right list for this is gnu-prog-discuss.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
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 projects using GitHub.

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

These are your personal opinions, and have nothing to do with how GNU
maintainers decide what to do with how they work.

Re: GNU projects using GitHub.

[Jean Louis]

* Alfred M. Szmidt  [2021-10-27 09:29]:
> A release is a release, how it is distributed doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if the release version is designated as such. For
example, if somebody tells me to checkout stable version of Emacs,
considered "release", by using specific git command, that is
acceptable.

But to provide to user simple access to Git repository without any
designation of what is release, and what is development, is rather not
responsible and brings users at risk.

> In the GNU project we prefer, but do not mandate, that people put
> release tar-balls on ftp.gnu.org or equivalent, it it makes sense to
> not to and only provide something via Git, CVS, or what have you that
> is also OK.

And software shall work, not just be development version. Some
software receives multiple updates per day that are not well verified
or working. If Git or version control repository is given in general,
without specific release branch -- this means giving to users
development version, not release version. It shall be designated as
such as not to cause confusion and also problems on users' computers.

Take Emacs for example, development version is not release. That is
because developers made clear distinction between them.

Without clear designation on what is "release" each user could be
downloading different version of software with different
functionality. 


Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Re: GNU projects using GitHub.

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

A release is a release, how it is distributed doesn't matter.

In the GNU project we prefer, but do not mandate, that people put
release tar-balls on ftp.gnu.org or equivalent, it it makes sense to
not to and only provide something via Git, CVS, or what have you that
is also OK.

Re: GNU projects using GitHub.

[Jean Louis]

* Po Lu  [2021-10-25 13:39]:
> Jean Louis  writes:
> 
> > But for developers and other contributors it may matter as maybe they
> > need to run some non-free javascript, I would not know.
> 
> This is the problem I'm referring to.

That problem is rather in development.

As I said, releases are on WWW server, not on Git server.

Git development should result in a release. But there is confusion
about it, and some developers think that "the source of release is in
Git" -- which is misleading to me, as Git is for development, not for
releases, not for download of sources.

As long as releases are referenced to WWW server and easily
downloadable, that problem for users is solved. But not for
contributors and developers, who in turn, by asking people to
contribute steer them towards non-free software.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Re: GNU projects using GitHub.

[Greg Farough]

On Mon, Oct 25 2021, Po Lu  wrote:

> "Alfred M. Szmidt"  writes:
>
>>I was asking for a clarification of GNU project policy.
>>
>>As I mentioned earlier,
>> https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html
>>lists GitHub as unacceptable for hosting of GNU software.
>>
>> That is your answer, what is there else to clarify?
>
> Well, why there are 2 GNU projects developed on GitHub.

It's strongly discouraged, and we should try to persuade them to do
otherwise, but my understanding is that GNU maintainers are allowed to
have repositories on GitHub. They already make other, similar
decisions on their own about the program they maintain.

The actual GNU maintainer policy document is linked below, in which
Savannah is recommended, but not mandated.



-g

Re: GNU projects using GitHub.

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >I was asking for a clarification of GNU project policy.
   >
   >As I mentioned earlier, 
https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html
   >lists GitHub as unacceptable for hosting of GNU software.
   >
   > That is your answer, what is there else to clarify?

   Well, why there are 2 GNU projects developed on GitHub.

You asked what the GNU policy was, but this is a very different
question.  The GNU project is very distributed, what individual
maintainers do is very much up to them.

Re: GNU projects using GitHub.

[Jean Louis]

* Po Lu  [2021-10-25 08:07]:
> Jean Louis  writes:
> 
> > I do not see that as problem as they contribute free software to GNU
> > project. 
> >
> > If they use some online proprietary software, that is their
> > decision. People may also use proprietary software on their computer
> > and be in proprietary operating system and create free software.
> >
> > What is important is to create free software, their contributions are
> > as such appreciated.
> >
> > Developers do get aware about Github gradually, there are many issues
> > and many developers move away from it. 
> 
> I was asking for a clarification of GNU project policy.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, 
> https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html
> lists GitHub as unacceptable for hosting of GNU software.

I know well. I don't support Github, neither recommend it, just like
you. But I don't enforce it.

That is Repo Criteria Evaluation. 

Here is GNU Coding Standards:
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html

Any "Git" or any other version control system accessible on Internet I
do not consider as "release", it is "source" though not the source of
the release. I hope you get me.

Github contributed to the confusion.

Git is for development. Even on Github one may find "releases" and
software developer who understand the difference offer the "release"
which means sources and binaries of specific version.

Git is for development, but not for distribution. Fetching from Git is
IMHO dangerous, as you never know if it is stable or not. It is
development version, and yet many distributions rely on Git like it is
"stable", which it is not. 

Thus when considering ethical distribution of software, one shall
rather look if the RELEASED SOURCE is on a WWW (http) server and
accessible without using non-free software. Though I do not speak for
GNU, it is my personal opinion.

And where is exactly the DEVELOPMENT SOURCE version it is up to
developers to decide, even though such may be accessible to public, I
do not consider such as final source, unless it is somewhere
designated to be final.

Then majority of GNU software is downloaded from GNU.ORG server. 

In this case https://www.gnu.org/s/radio redirects to
https://www.gnuradio.org/ the web page which is not standard GNU
according to my expectations as I cannot find "Download" easy. Not in
first menu, but in second menu "Getting Started" I can find
installation link:
https://wiki.gnuradio.org/index.php/InstallingGR#From_Source then I
find how to install the Master branch:

https://wiki.gnuradio.org/index.php/InstallingGR#For_GNU_Radio_3.9_and_Master_Branch

and there is note indicating about "stable" release, but I may be
mistaken:

,
| Note: If you want to build the maint-3.9 branch rather than the
| default master branch, enter: git checkout maint-3.9 and then
`

So I can just think that maint-3.9 is the stable version, there is no
clear information which version is the stable version.

But that does not prevent me accessing Git server and downloading from
there.

If you follow this thinking, it does not matter to user how is source
or binary downloaded as it it either by web server or git, or
something else.

But for developers and other contributors it may matter as maybe they
need to run some non-free javascript, I would not know.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Re: GNU projects using GitHub.

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   I was asking for a clarification of GNU project policy.

   As I mentioned earlier, 
https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html
   lists GitHub as unacceptable for hosting of GNU software.

That is your answer, what is there else to clarify?

Re: GNU projects using GitHub.

[Po Lu]

Jean Louis  writes:

> I do not see that as problem as they contribute free software to GNU
> project. 
>
> If they use some online proprietary software, that is their
> decision. People may also use proprietary software on their computer
> and be in proprietary operating system and create free software.
>
> What is important is to create free software, their contributions are
> as such appreciated.
>
> Developers do get aware about Github gradually, there are many issues
> and many developers move away from it. 

I was asking for a clarification of GNU project policy.

As I mentioned earlier, 
https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html
lists GitHub as unacceptable for hosting of GNU software.

Thanks.

Re: GNU projects using GitHub.

[Jean Louis]

* Po Lu  [2021-10-25 00:36]:
> GitHub is listed on https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html as
> "Unacceptable".  And not only does it require me to run unacceptable
> software in order to use it, but performs much less admirably for me
> than Savannah.  (70 KB/s downlink, anyone?)

I do not see that as problem as they contribute free software to GNU
project. 

If they use some online proprietary software, that is their
decision. People may also use proprietary software on their computer
and be in proprietary operating system and create free software.

What is important is to create free software, their contributions are
as such appreciated.

Developers do get aware about Github gradually, there are many issues
and many developers move away from it. 

Jean