Thanks for adopting the change I proposed.
Even if a program is proprietary, we invite its developers to use
GNOME as its interface platform.
I think it's a bit more negative
It has to be -- we must not be positive about proprietary software.
However, being more positive about
Your suggestions would probably be better received if they didn't sound so
much like orders.
I'm sorry if the tone rubbed you the wrong way, but I think it was
a misunderstanding. I was politely asking for someone to fix some bugs.
Vincent's proposal to explicitly list the acceptable
Hi, I'm not a Foundation member, but I would like to do some
suggestions:
The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software
but
that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe,
promote, use and write free software.
This is a self
On 19/01/10 02:49, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 13:08 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 15/01/10 17:31, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:47 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
You always seem to devolve into ad-hominem, personal attacks.
When a person falsely
On Jan 19, 2010, at 5:30 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@ubuntu.com
wrote:
Also, the examples were just that, examples. I should have not put
Lefty inside them as that was not necessary. Apologies if it looked
like I was attacking Lefty.
No worries. I'm pretty used to being accused of
In response to the first draft, I pointed out that it rejected the
ideas of the free software movement, and the only form of support it
gave was use of the term free software itself. Your new draft
cancels out that little support, by pairing the term with open source.
To fit GNOME's position as
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
In response to the first draft, I pointed out that it rejected the
ideas of the free software movement, and the only form of support it
gave was use of the term free software itself. Your new draft
cancels out that little
On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com
wrote:
Personally, I think we are delighted that they decided to use GNOME.
We aren't praising the proprietary software but expressing happiness
that they have decided to use free software that we have developed.
My
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 08:20 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
I think we gain more by being excited and asking them to join our
community, meet us, learn more about free software, etc than if we
temper it down. When you praise someone that's learning something, you
don't say that's ok but it'd be
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 08:20 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
Personally, I think we are delighted that they decided to use GNOME.
We aren't praising the proprietary software but expressing happiness
that they have decided to use free software that we have developed.
My impression is
On 15/01/10 17:31, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:47 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
You always seem to devolve into ad-hominem, personal attacks.
When a person falsely accuses Lefty of putting bias in his surveys THEN
you apparently don't need to respond with the ad-hominem
Hi,
Stormy Peters wrote:
My apologies for continuing the thread. My personal inbox and IM is
still going and it was suggested that I send out the version of the
statement that says free and open source.
The GNOME Foundation believes in free and open source software but that
does not mean
http://live.gnome.org/ProjectPrerequisites
The project must be free/open source software.
That text ought to say, simply, The project must be free software.
Adding open source makes the meaning less clear. There are open
source licenses which are not free; /open source introduces
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
http://live.gnome.org/ProjectPrerequisites
The project must be free/open source software.
That text ought to say, simply, The project must be free software.
Adding open source makes the meaning less clear. There are
On 1/18/10 2:32 PM, Dominic Lachowicz domlachow...@gmail.com wrote:
Can someone please fix that?
Perhaps it would be sufficient to link to the FSF's list of
GPL-compatible
licenses and recommended documentation licenses? That
would clear up any
possible confusion.
I gathered from what J5
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 13:08 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 15/01/10 17:31, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:47 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
You always seem to devolve into ad-hominem, personal attacks.
When a person falsely accuses Lefty of putting bias in his
Hey,
Le dimanche 17 janvier 2010, à 15:56 -0500, john palmieri a écrit :
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote:
It has been pointed out that in fact it has been written down:
http://live.gnome.org/ProjectPrerequisites
Those are prerequisites for project that
Hi Lefty,
Le dimanche 17 janvier 2010, à 21:45 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) a écrit :
On 1/17/10 9:30 PM, Jonathon Jongsma jonat...@quotidian.org wrote:
As far as I an tell, there has been essentially no controversy
whatsoever about
any of this until you and Philip seemingly started
trying to drum
Hi Richard,
Your suggestions would probably be better received if they didn't sound so
much like orders.
The GNOME project has said free and open source for a long time both on
our web pages and in press releases as far back as 2000. Changing it is
likely to bring up a long debate like the one
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 22:58 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
Dave,
[CUT]
If you're suggesting that _this_ survey is somehow biased, as your example
question would appear to, I'd appreciate more specific information.
Not at all. I even voted in it. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.comwrote:
You all represent GNOME when you are out in the world.
Let me clarify a bit more.
I think that we all represent the groups we are a part of all the time,
especially when we are the only one from that group present.
Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org writes:
a statement which represents the Foundation (which is, as Stormy has
pointed out, no more than its members)
This doesn't mean that the Foundation speaks for each of its members. The
Foundation speaks for itself and GNOME.
GNOME has a policy (written or
On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, Ciaran O'Riordan cia...@member.fsf.org wrote:
GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohibits importing non-free
software
into its repositories.
I'm not personally aware of a written policy to this effect. If there's an
unwritten policy, I'd encourage the Board to write
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org wrote:
On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, Ciaran O'Riordan cia...@member.fsf.org wrote:
GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohibits importing non-free
software
into its repositories.
I'm not personally aware of a written policy to
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 12:37 -0800, Luis Villa wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org wrote:
On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, Ciaran O'Riordan cia...@member.fsf.org wrote:
GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohibits importing non-free
software
into its
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org wrote:
On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, Ciaran O'Riordan cia...@member.fsf.org wrote:
GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohibits importing non-free
software
into
On 1/17/10 12:48 PM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, that policy has never been written down.
That is because there is and always has been a very, very, very clear
and common understanding that this is the policy. It takes almost
willful ignorance of our
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org wrote:
On 1/17/10 12:48 PM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, that policy has never been written down.
That is because there is and always has been a very, very, very clear
and common
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org
wrote:
On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, Ciaran O'Riordan cia...@member.fsf.org wrote:
GNOME has a
On 1/17/10 12:37 PM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, that policy has never been written down.
That is because there is and always has been a very, very, very clear
and common understanding that this is the policy. It takes almost
willful ignorance of our
Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org writes:
Open source doesn't imply any reason or policy for rejecting
proprietary software...
I'm afraid I really have to disagree here: open source software is
software which is made available under a license which satisfies the Open
Source Definition
The
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 22:52 +, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
[CUT]
The last few mails in this thread suggest that people are happy with this
aspect of GNOME's philosophy. So it's something worth maintaining. How do
we ensure that newcomers see the philosophy and the reasons for avoiding or
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
Using the term free software helps because it leads people to make a
connection with a philosophy that answers exactly that question. Other
helpful measures can include more prominently displaying the fact that
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 22:52 +, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
[CUT]
The last few mails in this thread suggest that people are happy with this
aspect of GNOME's philosophy. So it's something worth maintaining. How do
On 1/17/10 5:20 PM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote:
The FSF is welcome to give their advice; and should be treated with
respect when they do give it, the same as anyone else. This is
particularly true in this area, where we know we are walking a
difficult line between freedom and
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 17:55 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
We use the terms open and open source elsewhere, and it hasn't created
particular controversy, or visibly pushed us in the direction of
proprietary software, as far as I can tell. Why is it controversial here in
particular?
As far as I an
On 1/17/10 9:30 PM, Jonathon Jongsma jonat...@quotidian.org wrote:
As far as I an tell, there has been essentially no controversy
whatsoever about
any of this until you and Philip seemingly started
trying to drum one up. What
exactly are you even trying to change? Is
there an official GNOME
It is clear that GNOME needs to do more to educate its community,
including the Foundation members, about the importance of freedom;
that is, to communicate and support the ideas of the free software
movement.
The draft statement posted uses the term free software, but
it does not support
Anyway - as I say, for me they're essentially synonyms. For others,
including RMS, they're not.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
for an explanation of the difference in philosophy between free
software and open source.
GNOME is a GNU package, and was
On 1/16/10 1:10 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
for an explanation of the difference in philosophy between free
software and open source.
I'm pretty sure most people on the list have read the essay and understand
Le vendredi 15 janvier 2010, à 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
I also hope the foundation board will respect the results of these
surveys.
What do you mean?
Vincent
--
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
foundation-list mailing list
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:11 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi Vincent,
Le vendredi 15 janvier 2010, à 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
I also hope the foundation board will respect the results of these
surveys.
What do you mean?
I don't (didn't) mean any immediate action is needed. I
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far more
pragmatic than certain people in the audience would like us to be.
The results show 38 % of people non involved with free software, there
should be a way to temporary remove
Hi Philip,
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional
bias. For me they are being intellectually dishonest.
Giving one definition of a word, then asking if someone else's sentence
containing that word is true is
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 14:38 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
Hi Xavier,
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional
bias. For me they are being intellectually dishonest.
Giving one definition of a word,
Lefty
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 02:01 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
Hi Lefty,
Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for
some reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim
Vasile.
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org
wrote:
The results are more than enlightening to me. The surveys definitely
are useful and insightful.
They sharply illustrate that open source
On 1/15/10 5:38 AM, Xavier Bestel xavier.bes...@free.fr wrote:
Giving one definition of a word, then asking if someone else's sentence
containing that word is true is at best partial.
Xavier, without defining the term beforehand, I'd be open instead to
accusations that I wasn't being fair
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.orgwrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 14:38 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
Hi Xavier,
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional
bias. For me they
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
Hi Stormy!
I believe we can state it this way ...
The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free
software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary
software. We believe, promote, use and write free
Hi Philip,
Please refrain from calling people crazy or disruptive. Please keep the
discussion on the actions not people's characters.
By labelling people with negative terms, these debates turn into arguments
instead of productive discussions.
Stormy
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Philip Van
On 1/15/10 8:34 AM, Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software but
that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe,
promote, use and write free software.
We are excited when companies and
On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
source.
I have some sympathy with this view. Open source is my preference as well
and (based on the survey data) seems to have broader uptake among the
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
Hi Stormy!
I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
source.
I have some sympathy with this view. Open source is my preference as well
and
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:50 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
Hi Stormy,
Please refrain from calling people crazy or disruptive. Please keep
the discussion on the actions not people's characters.
By labelling people with negative terms, these debates turn into
arguments instead of productive
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 18:05 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
Hi Stormy!
Mistake, I was replying to Lefty.
Sorry Lefty. You know I like your féminin side ;)
I fully agree
I too usually prefer to use the term open source software. However, in this
context, I think the term free software is more appropriate.
To me, open source software is any software that meets the OSI definition,
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd. It is also the way most companies talk
about free
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
[CUT]
We could also amend the statement to say free and open source
software but it gets awkward.
I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both.
Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free
software' you
On 1/15/10 9:45 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both.
I'd favor this as well. What it gains in possible awkwardness (which doesn't
bother me, I used to say free and open source software all the time) it
also gains in clarity, I think.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org wrote:
On 1/15/10 9:45 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both.
I'd favor this as well. What it gains in possible awkwardness (which
doesn't
bother me, I used to say
Hi,
Philip Van Hoof wrote:
Lefty gave accurate definitions for the words he used. For example the
word illegitimate: Richard clearly questioned the legitimacy of
proprietary software and asked us to mirror this statement. This is
archived if you don't believe me.
illegitimate is not a
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
I believe we can state it this way ...
The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free
software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary
software. We believe, promote, use and write free software.
We are
On 1/15/10 10:01 AM, David Schlesinger le...@shugendo.org wrote:
Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free
software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also
endorses.
This is actually an excellent, and an important, point.
Having poked
On 1/15/10 10:10 AM, Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
I have no objections to free and open source other than it's awkwardness. (I
too have used it quite a bit.)
As I point out in my previous message, I¹d say we have to use it, awkward or
not.
I will amend to say free and open source in the least awkward way I can.
Stormy
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org wrote:
On 1/15/10 10:10 AM, Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
I have no objections to free and open source other than it's
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
I believe we can state it this way ...
The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free
software but that does not mean that GNOME is
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:15 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
On 1/15/10 10:01 AM, David Schlesinger le...@shugendo.org wrote:
Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free
software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also
endorses.
This is
Lefty, you don't go to an organization of iphone developers and use a survey
to try to convert them to be Android developers.
What you are doing is kind of like that here.
2010/1/15 Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org
Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for
some
I think what Lefty was trying to do was show that the list/community/group
has lots of different opinions and we all make lots of assumptions whenever
we talk about the community.
That said, I believe surveys are a very hard way to make definitive
statements.
Stormy
2010/1/15 Andy Tai
On 1/15/10 9:57 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
Please stop trolling.
Dave, I think this is unhelpful. If you must, maybe you should do it
privately, rather than publicly.
How about I do a poll whether people think PCs should run Windows or
another desktop environment? If we respect
On 1/15/10 11:10 AM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
We certainly all know that RMS believes that. Some other GNOME community
members may as well, though probably not a large number. It, is however,
your choice to focus on it, and I don't understand what you are trying
to achieve by
Le ven. 15 janv. 2010 à 18:57:52 (+0100), Dave Neary a écrit:
Philip Van Hoof wrote:
I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
source.
Please stop trolling. This is not going to lead to anything productive
(again).
Thanks Dave. I am coming late into this,
2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by
law or custom.
I don't see what the fuss is about.
Not sanctioned by custom precisely describes Richard Stallman's belief
that Free Software as a concept does not include considering proprietary
software as acceptable in most cases.
Whether that is true of
On 1/15/10 1:05 PM, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by law or custom.
I don't see what the fuss is about.
I don't know that there _is_ a fuss. That's one of the things I hope to
determine via the survey.
Not sanctioned by custom precisely
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 11:31 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
On 1/15/10 11:10 AM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
We certainly all know that RMS believes that. Some other GNOME community
members may as well, though probably not a large number. It, is however,
your choice to focus on it,
On 1/15/10 1:22 PM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
I think you may be reading quite a bit more into this than I'd intended. Do
you have an objection to the questions in the survey simply being _asked_,
Owen...?
It's very hard not to take the survey as a continuation of the recent
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
So proposing that GNOME as a project adopt one or the other amounts to a
troll, in that it will create an endless discussion with no result.
Well, I'll be sure not to propose that, then.
Again, my impression has been that there are
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
Having gone through 10 years of Open Source vs Free Software
debates, I know that (like emacs vs vim, bsd vs linux, gnome vs kde, bsd
vs gpl, reply-to for mailing lists, code indentation styles, and other
religious debates) that nothing
Hi,
Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
One further comment on this: I stand by my view that Stormy's mission
statement should not use the terminology free software to the exclusion of
the term open source software. In fact, in light of what you've said, I
believe I feel even a little more strongly about it:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org wrote:
I speak as part of GNOME, perhaps, but I don't speak _for_ GNOME. The
distinction is critically important. Speaking _for_ GNOME is a job for
Stormy and the Board, and those to whom they might choose to delegate that
On 1/15/10 3:17 PM, Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree quite strongly.
Fair enough, let me be clearer: my stated views do not necessarily represent
the views of the GNOME Foundation or the GNOME community. GNOME comprises a
variety of viewpoints, of which mine is one;
81 matches
Mail list logo
