Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
> IMHO This is a quiet egocentric point of view. > What are you implying with the "loud" minority here? Hi, "Quiet" is a funny typo here. Also, "peace on Earth and goodwill toward [all]." [1] Please [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74ocbvwam7c
Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, at 11:11 AM, MSavoritias wrote: > On 3/21/24 17:08, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: >> […] >> I don't understand how using petnames, uuids or even a re:claimID >> identity (see below) could solve the problem with "rewriting history" in >> case a person wishes to change his or her previous _published_ name >> (petname, uuid...) in an archived content-addressable storage system. > > It doesnt solve the problem of rewriting history. It solves the bug of > having names part of the git history. > > see also https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/20960 for Gitlab > doing the same thing. > Unless I’m missing something, the linked Gitlab issue seems to be a proposal by someone in February 2018 that Gitlab adopt some system of using UUIDs instead of author information. There was fairly limited discussion, with the last comment in May 2018. There does not seem to have been a consensus supporting the proposal, and I’m not seeing any indication that Gitlab plans to implement the proposal. Furthermore, the author and committer metadata are not the only places where people’s names appear in Guix. For example, I know some font packages that mention the name of the font designer in the package’s description. More broadly, Guix also refers to package sources by their content hashes: most sources probably contain some people’s names, and any of these could face the same problems as names directly included in the Guix Git repository. I strongly believe in the importance of protecting trans people from harassment. I don’t know how to solve the tension with long-term bit-for-bit reproducibility. Philip
Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
Hartmut Goebel writes: > Am 21.03.24 um 07:12 schrieb MSavoritias: >> Specifically the social rules that we support trans people and we >> want to include them. Any person really that want to change their >> name at some point for some reason. > > Interestingly you are asking the right to get the old name rewritten > for trans people only. This discussion arose because of the experiences of someone who's trans, and is relevant to many trans folks, so of course this will remain a major focus of the discussion. > To be frank: IMHO This is a quiet egocentric point of view. You're wrong and it ain't > In many cultures all over the world women are required to change their > name when they merry. And you are not asking for women's right. But > only for right for the small but loud minority of trans people. I am not aware of any women who want/have wanted to retroactively change historic occurences of their maiden name, so your mail reeks of concern trolling to me. There are (of course) instances where people may want to replace historic use of a name with another name for reasons other than transitioning, but that should make you rejoice in the fact that protecting trans people's rights also protects cis people's rights. This should not at all be surprising, as trans rights are human rights. Kind regards, pinoaffe
Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
Giovanni Biscuolo writes: > [...] > pinoaffe writes: >> - should examine possible workarounds going forward, >> - should move towards something like UUIDs and petnames in the long run. >> >> (see https://spritelyproject.org/news/petname-systems.html). > > I don't understand how using petnames, uuids or even a re:claimID > identity (see below) could solve the problem with "rewriting history" in > case a person wishes to change his or her previous _published_ name > (petname, uuid...) in an archived content-addressable storage system. It would decouple "name" from "identity as represented in the git merkle tree", thus allowing name changes to occur without affecting hashes and the like. I see no possible reason for UUID changes, as UUIDs (by themself) are not personally identifying. This of course would not allow retroactive splitting/merging of identities, but I feel like permitting that is incompatible with the idea of identities anyhow. > As a side note, other than the "petname system" please also consider > re:claimID from GNUnet: > https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/index.html > https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/motivation.html Sure, I'll take a look kind regards, pinoaffe
Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 04:23:01PM +0100, Hartmut Goebel wrote: > Am 21.03.24 um 07:12 schrieb MSavoritias: > > Specifically the social rules that we support trans people and we want > > to include them. Any person really that want to change their name at > > some point for some reason. > > Interestingly you are asking the right to get the old name rewritten for > trans people only. > > To be frank: IMHO This is a quiet egocentric point of view. I took it in as though we were discussing the recent activity, not that it was ONLY this instance that we care about. I have a number of friends who have more than 1 set of names and specifically wish to to by one set over the other. The point is that there is a vocal portion of people in the world who insist on deadnaming people, and that is not okay. > In many cultures all over the world women are required to change their name > when they merry. And you are not asking for women's right. But only for > right for the small but loud minority of trans people. As a project, we support people by addressing them by their preferred name, and honoring their wishes as to name, gender, honorifics, etc. For all people. If a person chooses to go by their "maiden name" or their "married name" or a pseudonym, that's their prerogative. > > -- > Regards > Hartmut Goebel > > | Hartmut Goebel | h.goe...@crazy-compilers.com | > | www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible | > > -- Efraim Flashner רנשלפ םירפא GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
Hi, What are you implying with the "loud" minority here? MSavoritias He's probably talking about the same thing that made you continue being heated after the fact you were told to calm down and you are not wasting any single opportunity to continue answering every single email in this thread and all the subthreads that continue to appear. I don't want to look insensitive but I think we are revolving around the same issue over and over again and honestly it's bothering me. Not the discussion itself, which has a profound meaning and it's a deep issue, but the way it is taking place and where it is taking place. It's also extremely sad to me to see many unanswered questions in the help-guix mailing list, which might or might not include questions from trans people that are willing to use the fantastic software we all collectively maintain and which would help them have a better life, and yet we are talking about the detail of the detail here for no real reason: this conversation does not have any practical purpose. Also there are hundreds of issues open in guix, which don't happen to deserve the attention this discussion has. I don't think this conversation is going to reach anywhere, and I would like to encourage people to spend their energy somewhere else until we really start having a different mindset on the issue. As we were suggested to do. I don't think this is a topic for `guix-devel` mailing list. If it is, please let me know and change my expectations accordingly. My suggestion is: if this is an actual problem with guix's software, we should open an issue for this, for those who are interested on actually trying to improve the situation. If it's not a problem with guix, then this conversation is just an exercise of ethical and intellectual bragging that is just uninteresting to me and more appropriate for social media. Best, Ekaitz
Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
On 3/21/24 17:23, Hartmut Goebel wrote: Am 21.03.24 um 07:12 schrieb MSavoritias: Specifically the social rules that we support trans people and we want to include them. Any person really that want to change their name at some point for some reason. Interestingly you are asking the right to get the old name rewritten for trans people only. To be frank: IMHO This is a quiet egocentric point of view. In many cultures all over the world women are required to change their name when they merry. And you are not asking for women's right. But only for right for the small but loud minority of trans people. What are you implying with the "loud" minority here? MSavoritias
Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
Am 21.03.24 um 07:12 schrieb MSavoritias: Specifically the social rules that we support trans people and we want to include them. Any person really that want to change their name at some point for some reason. Interestingly you are asking the right to get the old name rewritten for trans people only. To be frank: IMHO This is a quiet egocentric point of view. In many cultures all over the world women are required to change their name when they merry. And you are not asking for women's right. But only for right for the small but loud minority of trans people. -- Regards Hartmut Goebel | Hartmut Goebel | h.goe...@crazy-compilers.com | | www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |
Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
On 3/21/24 17:08, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: Hello pinoaffe, pinoaffe writes: [...] I think we, as Guix, - should examine if/how it is currently feasible to rewrite our git history, it's not, see also: https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/securing-updates/ - should examine possible workarounds going forward, - should move towards something like UUIDs and petnames in the long run. (see https://spritelyproject.org/news/petname-systems.html). I don't understand how using petnames, uuids or even a re:claimID identity (see below) could solve the problem with "rewriting history" in case a person wishes to change his or her previous _published_ name (petname, uuid...) in an archived content-addressable storage system. It doesnt solve the problem of rewriting history. It solves the bug of having names part of the git history. see also https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/20960 for Gitlab doing the same thing. MSavoritias As a side note, other than the "petname system" please also consider re:claimID from GNUnet: https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/index.html https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/motivation.html [...] Regards, Giovanni. [1] https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/securing-updates/
Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
Hello pinoaffe, pinoaffe writes: [...] > I think we, as Guix, > - should examine if/how it is currently feasible to rewrite our git > history, it's not, see also: https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/securing-updates/ > - should examine possible workarounds going forward, > - should move towards something like UUIDs and petnames in the long run. > > (see https://spritelyproject.org/news/petname-systems.html). I don't understand how using petnames, uuids or even a re:claimID identity (see below) could solve the problem with "rewriting history" in case a person wishes to change his or her previous _published_ name (petname, uuid...) in an archived content-addressable storage system. As a side note, other than the "petname system" please also consider re:claimID from GNUnet: https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/index.html https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/motivation.html [...] Regards, Giovanni. [1] https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/securing-updates/ -- Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
Hi! MSavoritias writes: > On 3/20/24 19:22, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: >> Disclaimer: I've still not read all the relevant threads [3] [4], so >> please forgive me if I repeat some information already provided. >> >> What rights are we talking about? > > You are making the same misconception as some other people in the > thread here. > > We are talking about social rules that we have here in the Guix > community not legal/state rules. Arborelia is clearly talking about legal/state rules in part of her blogposts. You can argue that the state rules aren't relevant here (IMO, Giovanni's observations support this argument), but it's not a "misconception" to think that the current discussion is at least partially about the legal aspects. > Specifically the social rules that we support trans people and we want > to include them. Any person really that want to change their name at > some point for some reason. > > To that end we listen to their concerns/wishes and we accommodate > them. I agree that we should listen to peoples concerns/wishes and accommodate them out of basic respect, but we can only accomodate people's wishes when those wishes fall within what is technologically feasible and reasonable. When a person publishes books under a certain identity, it is not feasible for *every* mention in every copy to retroactively be updated to reflect a new name. In a similar manner, it is (currently) not always feasible to rewrite git history to change historic names. I think we, as Guix, - should examine if/how it is currently feasible to rewrite our git history, - should examine possible workarounds going forward, - should move towards something like UUIDs and petnames in the long run. (see https://spritelyproject.org/news/petname-systems.html). >> As a *free software* user do I have the right to redistribute /old/ >> copies of the source code and documentation I got in the past from the >> copyright holder, in any form (e.g. print)?... or to use old sources or >> documentation to develop derived work, with _attribution_, without >> asking for consent from the original authors and/or contact the original >> authors to ask them what is their current name? > > Copyright is not consent. When we are talking about consent we are > talking about it in social rules. > > See also > https://www.consentfultech.io/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Building-Consentful-Tech.pdf > as a nice paper for consent in tech. > >> If yes, I would like to exercise all my rights without being harassed. > > Again this has nothing to do with rights granted by states. This is > about including people and making them feel safe and respected. I fully agree with you here, rights such as the right to free speech and copyleft don't mean that any action that falls within those rights should be free of consequences, especially when such an action excludes others, disrespects them or makes them feel unsafe. >> [...] kind regards, pinoaffe
Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
Hello all. I object to this argument: MSavoritias writes: > We are talking about social rules that we have here in the Guix > community not legal/state rules. No, legal rules come from deliberation of social arguments. CoC-wise, it seems to me that SWH was unfriendly and this is important to Guix. But SWH’s legal arguments are also social arguments and cannot be dismissed. I do not know if SWH really is an archive in the sense of the law, but certainly we are facing a trade-off. It would be nice if Guix could handle harmless deletion or rectifications. Whether that is possible shapes laws. I believe it is possible, but “show me how” is a valid response. Regards, Florian
Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
> We are talking about social rules that we have here in the Guix > community not legal/state rules. ethics, i.e. the discussion of rights, is a branch of philosophy. ideally, it should inform the people who are writing and enforcing state laws, but these days -- sadly -- it has precious little to do with state laws. and i think you're the one here who conflates the two. > Specifically the social rules that we support trans people and we want > to include them. Any person really that want to change their name at > some point for some reason. > > To that end we listen to their concerns/wishes and we accommodate them. i've asked you this before, and i'll keep asking it: sure, accommodate, but to what extent? what is a reasonable cost i can incur on others? (see the discussion of negative vs. positive rights in this context) what if i declare that i only feel accommodated here if everyone attaches the local weather forcast to each mail they send to guix-devel? the limit of your demands begins where it starts to constrain the freedom of others. considering this is an essential part of respectful behavior towards others. -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.” — Carl Jung (1875–1961)
Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
On 3/20/24 19:22, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: Hello Ludovic and Guix devel community! Disclaimer: I've still not read all the relevant threads [3] [4], so please forgive me if I repeat some information already provided. What rights are we talking about? You are making the same misconception as some other people in the thread here. We are talking about social rules that we have here in the Guix community not legal/state rules. Specifically the social rules that we support trans people and we want to include them. Any person really that want to change their name at some point for some reason. To that end we listen to their concerns/wishes and we accommodate them. As a *free software* user do I have the right to redistribute /old/ copies of the source code and documentation I got in the past from the copyright holder, in any form (e.g. print)?... or to use old sources or documentation to develop derived work, with _attribution_, without asking for consent from the original authors and/or contact the original authors to ask them what is their current name? Copyright is not consent. When we are talking about consent we are talking about it in social rules. See also https://www.consentfultech.io/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Building-Consentful-Tech.pdf as a nice paper for consent in tech. If yes, I would like to exercise all my rights without being harassed. Again this has nothing to do with rights granted by states. This is about including people and making them feel safe and respected. MSavoritias Also, SHW and other organizations (re)distributing free software have their rights and should excercise them without being harassed. Ludovic Courtès writes: [...]
the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)
Hello Ludovic and Guix devel community! Disclaimer: I've still not read all the relevant threads [3] [4], so please forgive me if I repeat some information already provided. What rights are we talking about? As a *free software* user do I have the right to redistribute /old/ copies of the source code and documentation I got in the past from the copyright holder, in any form (e.g. print)?... or to use old sources or documentation to develop derived work, with _attribution_, without asking for consent from the original authors and/or contact the original authors to ask them what is their current name? If yes, I would like to exercise all my rights without being harassed. Also, SHW and other organizations (re)distributing free software have their rights and should excercise them without being harassed. Ludovic Courtès writes: [...] >> I was also distressed to see how poorly they treated a developer who >> wished to update their name: [1] https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/4968198-the-software-heritag [2] https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/5052044-the-software-heritag > That’s another concern, with append-only storage in general, starting > with Git. We should look for solutions that work for both contributors > who change names and for users. This has happened several times in Guix > and what people did was search/replace their name and adjust > ‘.mailmap’. This is a good solution but unfortunately this is not what the author of the blog posts above [1] [2] and some people in this and other threads [3] [4] are asking SWH - and Guix and potentially all other people distributing copies of copyrighted works (e.g. documentation) - to do. They are asking to "rewrite history" [1] (of git... why not of other archives?): --8<---cut here---start->8--- I already fixed my name in my code. I updated the README and the copyright notice, and I ran git-filter-repo to rewrite the git history so it had always said my correct name, including in commits. This is a thing you can do. --8<---cut here---end--->8--- The author explicitely invokes the "right to rectification" (of the GDPR) [2]: --8<---cut here---start->8--- I give zero shits about the integrity of their data structures. I had already sent them a second email invoking the Right to Rectification, which it seemed like they ignored again, so it was time to get more formal. [...] En application de l’article 21.1 du Règlement général sur la protection des données (RGPD), je m’oppose au traitement de mes données à caractère personnel par votre organisme, l’archive Software Héritage. [...] Dès lors, vous voudrez bien : * supprimer mes données de vos fichiers et notifier ma demande aux organismes auxquels vous les auriez communiquées (articles 17.1.c. et 19 du RGPD) ; * si vous en avez l’obligation légale, m’indiquer la durée de conservation de mes données dans vos bases archives ; * m'informer de ces éléments dans les meilleurs délais et au plus tard dans un délai d’un mois à compter de la réception de ce courrier (article 12.3 du RGPD). --8<---cut here---end--->8--- People asking to rectify informaiton /they/ _published_ on their own are obviously misinterpreting the relevant section of the GDPR (more on this later)... and in fact, the SHW DPO reply is [2]: --8<---cut here---start->8--- Unfortunately, the deletion or modification of the software repositories you requested cannot be performed, for several reasons: * On the one hand, these developments involve several authors and are made available under open source licenses, which explicitly allow copying and redistribution * On the other hand, the mission of Software Heritage archive is to guarantee the availability of all versions of all publicly available source codes, and to ensure the integrity of these codes We understand the concern about the display of outdated identities, and for this reason a mechanism has been put in place to display a preferred identity across all the Software Heritage archive. --8<---cut here---end--->8--- But the authos is still not satisfied with the solution proposed by SHW (and used by Guix for it's contributors): --8<---cut here---start->8--- * I was not asking them to develop such a mechanism. I don't just want them to cosmetically change what they display, I want them to change the data. I can't trust the organization that contains the transphobe who had written their previous content policy to hold on to a substitution rule involving my deadname forever. --8<---cut here---end--->8--- «I want them to change the data», that is: rewrite history (of /all/ the copies of the repository archived by SWH, **fork** included?) The CNIL (the french data regulator)
