Re: Websearch: ranking recent articles higher (was: Bandwidth-hungry services burden the internet)

[Please note: Something happened with your MUA and your letter had fallen off the thread.] Akira Urushibata wrote: > On 28 May 2020 Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> "Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> wrote: >>> It is fairly well-known that

Re: Websearch: ranking recent articles higher (was: Bandwidth-hungry services burden the internet)

"Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> wrote: > It is fairly well-known that Google ranks newer material above older > material. Historic areas of the web are basically in a black hole as far as > the Google search is concerned. > > And since many people reach for the

Re: Programmers as users

nipponm...@firemail.cc wrote: > Alexandre François Garreau: >> For those unaware: most mailing software can \u201cfilter\u201d mails so you >> don\u2019t see them, and they end up deleted > > Yea, I'm SURE Free Software Programmers have a TON of problems "Discovering" > that mail clients can

Re: What is ‘OS’? (was: Why "GNU/Linux" is not accepted: an observation)

Akira Urushibata wrote: > Subscribers of this mailing list know what an operating system is. Yes, they for sure know. But I would not sure, that they _agree_ on what ‘OS’ is. If we exclude marginal ones (like OS == kernel), I am aware of two consistent definitions of ‘operating system’: 1.

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Andreas Enge wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:06:42PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >> What is the exact _goal_ of this text? > > I think it should be a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for > stakeholders in the GNU project to take part in its governance. As it seems, that youʼve

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

"Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> wrote: > By the way, "contract" seems like a misnomer > A statement of promises to behave in some ways toward some group (such as a > "community"), who makes no reciprocal promises and isn't a party to the > document is rather a

Do the proponents of GNU ‘Social contract’ value its paragraph about ‘harassment’ above the freedom-related ones? (was: A GNU “social contract”?)

Andreas Enge wrote: > Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> Andreas Enge wrote: >>> Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >>>> Instead of making GNU more welcoming place by lessening the burden of >>>> formalities, you in fact propose GNU to withdraw deeper into itself by

Concrete suggestions on how to make GNU more welcoming (was: A GNU “social contract”?)

Andreas Enge wrote: > Please, Alexandre and others > I would suggest to make concrete suggestions Thank you for invitation. Concrete suggestions on how could GNU be improved to attract more contributors: * (1) Do not impose any ideology on them. * (2) Lessen the amount of formalities, that

GNU vs. Church of Emacs (was: A GNU “social contract”?)

Andreas Enge wrote: > Here we disagree. GNU is not developed in a cave Yes, thanks to a RMSʼs wise decision not to mix development of GNU with Church of Emacs — a decision you are now trying hard to revise and drive GNU into a cave where all contributors have to live on “their own dog food”.

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Andreas Enge wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:56:15AM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> Instead of making GNU more welcoming place by lessening the burden of >> formalities, you in fact propose GNU to withdraw deeper into itself by >> inventing ideology-driven ‘cont

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Jean Louis wrote: > Yet you do allow as Emacs maintainer publishing of free software improvements > into Emacs? > publishing … into Emacs > into What? I suppose, youʼd better rephrase that. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Andreas Enge wrote: > On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 11:13:57PM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> > We want to give everyone the opportunity to contribute to our efforts on >> > any of the many tasks that require work. We welcome all contributors… >> >> Many GNU subpr

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Andreas Enge wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 11:49:03PM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> Andreas Enge wrote: >> > For instance, I would not find it acceptable that a GNU maintainer goes to >> > [a conference] to give a talk about their newest open source

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Andreas Enge wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 12:46:42PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >> In the GNU project everyone is welcome, even people who do not share the >> goals and philosophy of the GNU project. > > I do not think this makes sense, actually. As soon as we have a bit of >

Re: The list discourse

"Thompson, David" wrote: > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:54 PM Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> wrote: >> "Thompson, David" wrote: >> > So you ousted the moderators that added you as moderators? How lovely. >> > The discou

Re: The list discourse (was: list moderation)

"Thompson, David" wrote: > So you ousted the moderators that added you as moderators? How lovely. The > discourse here has gotten considerably worse since. Surely a coincidence. FWIW, I do not think so, on the contrary, Iʼm pleased to see even a small shift in a discourse from

Re: Is negative publicity always harmful?

Brandon Invergo wrote: > Dmitry Alexandrov writes: >> Iʼm afraid, you conflated two points. Publicity that undermine the core >> competency of an organization — yes, is perhaps is the most harmful thing >> for it. >> >> While negative publicity on irrelevant t

Is negative publicity always harmful? (was: Women and GNU and RMS)

Sandra Loosemore wrote: > The absolute worst thing the public-facing representative of *any* > organization can do is bring negative publicity to the organization about > things that are irrelevant or contrary to the organization's mission. Iʼm afraid, you conflated two points. Publicity that

Re: Need of `stubborn governance'

a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) wrote: >Whatʼs about Readline and Tivoization, though? > > With Readline I was refering to how GNU clisp used readline Ah! Thanks. >> To understand a opposition, one needs to know the why. Taking your > statement at face value as to what might have

Re: Why fewer contributors to GNU? They have to reveal identity and assign copyright

Jean Louis wrote: > * gameonli...@redchan.it [2019-11-04 12:56]: >> Reasons fewer men contribute to GNU: >> - Have to reveal identity. > > That is not quite so. In America country it is possible to use pen names. Why is it specific to ‘America country’ (whatever it is)? I thought, contributing

RMSʼs videos (was: Will RMS be back to Programming now?)

gameonli...@redchan.it wrote: > The video in Putins Russia > Putins Russia > Putins ??? > The video in … Russia this year was very good; you should put that on the GNU > page Which one? RMS gave several speeches during his last visit to Russia: two in SPb and one in Moscow, IIRC. > also

Re: “Restricting yourself to just one message a day to the list is not a bad thing” (was: List posting rules)

Jean Louis wrote: > "Restricting yourself to just one message a day to the list is not a bad > thing." -- that is nonsense and shall be removed. By imposing speed of > thinking and speed of writing you are hindering speed of communication and > thus any solutions and friendship balances to

Re: Why can't I send mail to this list?

gameonli...@redchan.it wrote: > On 2019-11-03 19:33, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> nipponp...@airmail.cc wrote: >>> Testing if I can post to this list, probably not since you guys censor >>> everything (so that RMS can't see his supporters.) >> >> gameonli...@

Re: Why don't gnu.org and RMS sign mail? - FDE Crypto

a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) wrote: > Please keep discussions related to technical issues about the GNU system, > non-free platforms are entierly off-topic for this list. Please note, @gameonli...@redchan.it sent his letter to two m/l: gnu-system-disc...@gnu.org and

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Andreas Enge wrote: > Proposal of a “GNU Social Contract” > > This document states the core commitments of the GNU Project to the broader > free software community. All current GNU Project members have agreed to > uphold these values. In other words, you suggest to tighten the screws even

Re: List posting rules

"Carlos O'Donell" wrote: > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 2:01 PM Dora Scilipoti wrote: >> You, Carlos O'Donell, and your fellow censor Mark Wielaard, should NOT be >> the moderators of this list. You are both signers of a public document that >> calls for the removal of Richard Stallman as the

Re: Support for RMS and criticism of the bottom-up/social contract power grab attempt.

Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > Le vendredi 1 novembre 2019, 18:37:54 CET Jean Louis a écrit : >> That was a statement that was created, people from various parts of the >> world cannot possibly make a joint statement in same time. There was >> initator to that statement, and initator

Re: Need of ‘stubborn governance’

Jean Louis wrote: > Somebody mentioned first "stubborn". In my opinion word stubborn in relation > to RMS does not describe his character well, as stubborn is according to > Wordnet dictionary: tenaciously unwilling or marked by tenacious > unwillingness to yield -- while other synonyms could

Re: Support for RMS and criticism of the "bottom-up"/"social contract" power grab attempt.

Marcel wrote: > On 10/31/19 4:11 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >>> On 10/31/19 3:01 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >>>> Marcel wrote: >>>>> What I do see are volunteers trying to opportunistically derail the Free >>>>> Software Movem

Re: Support for RMS and criticism of the "bottom-up"/"social contract" power grab attempt.

Marcel wrote: > What I do see are volunteers trying to opportunistically derail the Free > Software Movement at a moment of perceived weakness for RMS. I read concerns > about the eventual death of RMS to the survival of GNU, yet RMS is not dead > yet When heʼs dead, it may be too late to

Re: GNU project _does_ discriminate contributors by classes

Florian Weimer wrote: > Widely misunderstood terms can create quite a mess, as can be seen here: > > > > Basically, it turns out that several Bacula contributors signed away their > rights twice (“Due to historical reasons

Re: GNU project _does_ discriminate contributors by classes

Mike Gerwitz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 17:43:05 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> Jean Louis wrote: >>> GNU project does not discriminate by gender, or other classes, neither >>> verifies genders of contributors, or their classes, as everybody is

Re: to what extent is the gnu project philosophical?

Andy Wingo wrote: > If the work of GNU is fundamentally philosophical, then perhaps yes -- maybe > no developer who uses a smartphone is suitable to be a part of GNU > decision-making This is based on implication that ‘smartphone’ is something that inevitably runs lots of nonfree software.

Re: Support for RMS and criticism of the "bottom-up"/"social contract" power grab attempt.

Marcel wrote: > On 10/31/19 3:01 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> Marcel wrote: >>> What I do see are volunteers trying to opportunistically derail the Free >>> Software Movement at a moment of perceived weakness for RMS. I read >>> concerns about the e

Re: GNU project _does_ discriminate contributors by classes

Jason Self wrote: > My direct firsthand experience directly conflicts with what you allege to be > the case. Nice to hear this! However, it shows how inadequate the situation is: one have to collect firsthand experience rather than read clear and concise summary on the topic, published

Re: GNU project _does_ discriminate contributors by classes

DJ Delorie wrote: >> if a contributor-to-be happens to be an employee, FSF does not trust his >> words about origin of his contribution, > > This seems reasonable to me in the USA. > Given how complex employment contracts are, it's reasonable to ask for a > legal disclaimer from employers >

Re: GNU project _does_ discriminate contributors by classes

Jason Self wrote: > On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 17:43 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> To the best of my knowledge, thatʼs completely untrue: major GNU subprojects >> do discriminate contributors by classes: if a contributor-to-be happens to >> be an employee, FSF does not

GNU project _does_ discriminate contributors by classes (was: A GNU “social contract”?)

Jean Louis wrote: > GNU project does not discriminate by gender, or other classes, neither > verifies genders of contributors, or their classes, as everybody is welcome > to contribute To the best of my knowledge, thatʼs completely untrue: major GNU subprojects do discriminate contributors by

Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated

"Carlos O'Donell" wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:21 AM Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Mark Wielaard wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 05:22:48AM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> >> Iʼd like to report that my message number

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

Jean Louis wrote: > * Florian Weimer [2019-10-24 16:32]: >> * Alfred M. Szmidt: >> >> > Debian renegaded on their goal of being a 100% free software system, they >> > now include non-free software. That is the danger, and it is very much >> > real. >> >> And GNU comes with non-free

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

Florian Weimer wrote: > * Alfred M. Szmidt: >> Debian renegaded on their goal of being a 100% free software system, they >> now include non-free software. > > And GNU comes with non-free documentation. He-he. Could you please remind us, under what terms Debian Wiki is distributed?

Re: emailselfdefense.fsf.org indirectly recommends a proprietary service through the new Enigmail defaults

Jean Louis wrote: > * Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> [2019-10-28 17:53]: >> the SKS keyserver network — the de-facto standard for years — is not >> [proprietary], it is a decentralized replicated network — like Usenet; while >> keys.openpgp.org, to carry on th

Re: emailselfdefense.fsf.org indirectly recommends a proprietary service through the new Enigmail defaults

Jean Louis wrote: > * Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> [2019-10-28 15:21]: >> Even if FSF, like Werner Koch , believes that there is >> nothing wrong ethically with steering users to an isolated proprietary >> service, the guide is simply incorrect factually.

Re: “GNU welcomes contributions from all and everyone” in context of the proposed “GNU social contract”

Jason Self wrote: > Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Mark Wielaard wrote: >>> On Sat, 2019-10-26 at 02:45 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >>>> Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>>>> * GNU welcomes contributions from all and everyone >&

Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated (was: ML posting issues)

Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 05:22:48AM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> Iʼd like to report that my message number d0eidcqu.321...@gmail.com (below), >> sent a day ago to gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org (which I am subscribed on and >> usually have no prob

Re: Need of ‘stubborn governance’ (was: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization)

a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) wrote: >> The only way tackle non-free software is to explicitly reject it, at all > times. > >Then we can write that in a GNU social contract, instead of having to rely > on stubborn governance. > > Yet again, you argue that we should have a weaker

Re: “GNU cares for computer user freedom beyond software” (was: A GNU “social contract”?)

Ludovic Courtès wrote: > * GNU cares for computer user freedom beyond software Does the title reflect well what is under it? Among SaaS(S), nonconsently installed (java)scripts, DRM and surveillance, only surveillance issues go beyond software. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: “GNU welcomes contributions from all and everyone” (was: A GNU “social contract”?)

Ludovic Courtès wrote: > * GNU welcomes contributions from all and everyone > > The GNU Project produces software for anyone to use, but also wants to give > everyone the opportunity to contribute Curious. Prior paragraphs were substantiated by links to extensive articles on gnu.org, while

“GNU software is distributed under the terms of [copyleft] licenses” (was: A GNU “social contract”?)

Ludovic Courtès wrote: > * GNU licenses uphold user freedom > > The GNU Project has designed software licenses to ensure developers cannot > strip off user freedom from GNU software—“copyleft” licenses. GNU software > is distributed under the terms of these licenses. Sorry, but thatʼs simply

Re: Free spyware (was: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization)

Colby Russell wrote: > consider the case of bona fide spyware that turns out to be released by its > author under GPLv3.  It therefore guarantees your ability to exercise the > four freedoms, but does it actually *respect* the user's freedoms? If besides being shipped under a free licence it

Re: Enigmail/PEP mangles GPG configs. Other choices for a MUA

Werner Koch wrote: >> Now you apparently would like to try the innovative PEP-enhanced Enigmail >> 2.1 by yourself to see all these fancy things with your own eyes, so I must >> warn you: *it mangles ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf and ~/.gnupg/gpg-agent.conf*, so >> take precautions. > > That is okay

Re: “Keyservers are actually useless these days and I wish they could go away”

Werner Koch wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:44, 321...@gmail.com said: >> Werner Koch wrote: >>> Keyservers are actually useless these days and I wish they could go away. >> >> An advocate of the ‘Web of Trust’ hardly agrees with that. I am not the >> one, however I’m really intrigued — what

Re: emailselfdefense.fsf.org indirectly recommends a proprietary service through a new Enigmail defaults

Werner Koch wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:37, 321...@gmail.com said: >>> A problem is the single-point-of-validation (done via mail confirmation) >>> which puts [keys.openpgp.org] in a position like X.509 CAs. >> >> That is, mister Brunschwig is willing to add other keyservers on a par with

Re: “Keyservers are actually useless these days and I wish they could go away”

Werner Koch wrote: > Keyservers are actually useless these days and I wish they could go away. An advocate of the ‘Web of Trust’ hardly agrees with that. I am not the one, however I’m really intrigued — what do you suggest to use instead. > Looking up key at a keyserver does not give you any

Re: emailselfdefense.fsf.org indirectly recommends a proprietary service through a new Enigmail defaults

Werner Koch wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 07:43, 321...@gmail.com said: > >> describes, changed the default keyserver from the SKS round-robin pool, to a >> *proprietary centralized service* [2], “one of whose > > Although I have some concerns with those validating keyservers, like >

emailselfdefense.fsf.org indirectly recommends a proprietary service through a new Enigmail defaults

://keys.openpgp.org --- Begin Message --- On 10.07.2019 05:55, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > Patrick Brunschwig wrote: >> I am happy to announce Enigmail v2.0.12 for Thunderbird 60.* > >> This release sets the default keyserver to keys.openpgp.org in order to >> mitigate t

Why is it ethical not to write a program at all (Was: referencing non-free software)

> Also, why it's ethical not to write the program at all (giving users > _no_ freedom to do anything) Because proprietor is not ‘giving’ or ‘presenting’ freedoms to users, he is *returning* it. Naturally users do have their essential rights, it’s a copyright law that takes them away,

Re: referencing non-free software

Ilya Shlyakhter wrote: > All I'm suggesting is that beOrg be mentioned in the same appendix > as MobileOrg ( https://orgmode.org/manual/MobileOrg.html#MobileOrg), > along with a note saying "beOrg is currently non-free, we strongly > recommend that users avoid non-free software, here is a link to

Re: referencing non-free software

>>> It's one thing to promote free software by creating a free program >>> superior to a non-free one, pointing users to both, explaining the >>> advantages of the free program (including the freedom part), and >>> then letting the users decide. It's quite another thing to simply >>> hide the

Re: Linux Kernel.org email address

Jacinto Moreno writes: IANAL, TINLA. > Hi,Our company has made some small modifications to the Linux Kernel > and in order to be compliant with GPLv2 I wanted to send an email to > kernel.org with the patches we >