Dora Scilipoti writes:
> What if I want to propose a governance model that includes someone as
> head of a committee, for example. Am I not allowed to name and talk
> about the qualities of the person I consider relevant for the position?
*Here* it's reasonable to talk about how the *model*
Marcel writes:
> I invite you to post _ALL_ my censored messages in chronological order,
If your solution to "I broke the rules" is "post my messages anyway, so
I can get away with breaking the rules"... no thanks.
If you have a problem with the moderation, that's between you and the
Alexandre François Garreau writes:
> Aren’t these two statements contradictory (as governance is made of by
> people,
> and currently a single one)? as it was stated before (for instance by Dora)
Consider the difference between "how does the consensus model compare to
the committee model?"
Dora Scilipoti writes:
> Oh! I thought the conversations here were started to talk about a new
> governance model specifically for GNU.
Well... it's all related, but each sub-project in GNU itself needs a
local governance model, and even if it's different than the top-level
GNU model, they
Jean Louis writes:
> 2. dictator, potentate -- (a ruler who is unconstrained by law)
> 3. authoritarian, dictator -- (a person who behaves in a tyrannical
> manner; "my boss is a dictator who makes everyone work overtime")
These. It was Uli at the time. The experience was very negative.
a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> They shouldn't be required to defend the GNU projects values, we
> welcome everyone. And that is on purpose.
I see a problem here... GNU is inclusive to anyone who is willing to be
a dumb code monkey who doesn't care about freedom, but is unwilling to
be
> 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. Many companies have a clause in
their contracts that say that the company owns anything the employee
creates during their tenure, *even
Colby Russell writes:
> This software might be open source and use the open source development
> model, but it won't be free software
>
> If that's the case, then it has to be true that the four freedoms are
> necessary but not sufficient to say that a piece of software is free
>
writes:
> This is already solved. The GNU domain (and many copyrights and right to
> issue new versions of licenses etc.) is held by FSF.
Well, that covers quite a bit. Not all of it, I assume. That might be
enough for projects that live 100% in the gnu.org domain, but not all
do. The ones
Ruben Safir writes:
>> So the question becomes... what happens if, $diety forbid, RMS gets hit
>> by a bus? Who does the "appointing" then?
>
> weel it certainly can't be anyone who makes a public petition to remove
> RMS. Those people are autmoatically not viable canidates.
There is nothing
Ruben Safir writes:
> Appointment has always worked.
In another project I contribute to, there was a conversation about the
project's "bus factor":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor
We tried to restructure the project so that no one role had a bus factor
of one.
RMS is a bus factor of
Alexandre François Garreau writes:
> Yet expressing it directly, without filter, it has already been
> said, is unkind.
I agree, and I think this is a key point to understand. The FSF has
stated that it will accept work from anyone regardless of what they
BELIEVE. Kindness is about what
a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> You make the assumption that the views of the maintainers are the
> views of the GNU project -- this has never been the case. GNU
> maintainers do not define what the GNU project is.
Because we are all code monkeys, aka programming slaves. As long as we
Namecheap, and likely most domain services, automatically block all
personal information by default. Protecting users' privacy is in line
with GNU standards. Attempting to expose people's hidden private
information is not.
a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> The wiki does not represent the views of the GNU project. Nor will it
> be hosted on GNU infrastructure, as was made quite clear by the head
> of the GNU project.
I think we all agree on this, and repeating it is not adding anything to
the
a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> You make the incorrect assumption that the health of the GNU project
> should be measured in how many new projects are adopted or released --
> instead of what our goal is to provide a free operating system.
Are we DONE producing that operating system?
a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> 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.
One could argue that this indicates that what you term "GNU
Eli Zaretskii writes:
> No one, not even the above quote, said they have "no impact" in
> general.
I didn't say that. I said you could argue that. It's a point to
consider and discuss, that's all. Sometimes an extreme viewpoint makes
discussion clearer, and the results can be applied to the
Jean Louis writes:
> * DJ Delorie [2020-02-19 21:01]:
>>
>> "Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> writes:
>> > On 2020-02-17 12:37, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> >> Thought experiment: what would GNU be if all of
"Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> writes:
> On 2020-02-17 12:37, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> Thought experiment: what would GNU be if all of its packages stopped
>> developing? Dead, right?
>
> The immediate effect would become more of a stable base for the vast
> amount of
"Andreas R." writes:
> The wiki has been described as a tool for *all* GNU maintainers, even
> though it's only available to a certain subset of GNU maintainers
> willing to agree to new stipulations that were never part of being a
> GNU maintainer.
The wiki states "currently limited to GNU
Akira Urushibata writes:
> The term "stakeholder" requires explanation.
In this case, the original literal meaning isn't as appropriate as the
modern figurative meaning.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+stakeholder
"2. A person with an interest or concern in something, especially a
Jean Louis writes:
> The hypothetical case you wish to present would be dividing GNU
> project and FSF, which also does not make sense.
I agree.
> Please note that RMS is founder of the FSF, and hypothetically, with
> help of few members, could also re-submit the Articles of Association
> of
Mike Gerwitz writes:
> The FSF does provide essential resources for the GNU Project, but it has
> no say in how the project is governed. Those decisions must be made by
> rms.
It's important to remember that one of the "essential resources" is the
GNU trademark itself, which means that the FSF
Jean Louis writes:
> Why should any policy of GNU be changed when they have been
> functioning well for decades?
This argument was used when GPLv2 was introduced, and again with GPLv3.
Things change, we must adapt. "The old way is good enough" is not a
good long-term policy.
[original mailing lists added back in; your mails make replying
difficult as they do not include the mailing list address]
nylxs writes:
> On 12/27/19 4:39 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> As volunteers for the GNU Project we are happy that the FSF provides GNU
>> with services like fiscal
Jean Louis writes:
> I have downloaded packages. For GNU tools I can find sources. For Gow,
> I cannot find.
Perhaps the runtime was elided under the "major components" part of GPL
sec 3 ?
"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is
shulie writes:
> That is MOSTLY, but not completely true. The Phone company, for
> example, can not disconnect you because your a communist.
That's an example of the contract thing I mentioned. They entered into
a contract where, in exchange for a temporary monopoly, they agreed to
operate
Jacob Bachmeyer writes:
> Since GNU is based in USA, is this particular protest obsolete, as any
> such censorship applied to us would be clearly unconstitutional,
For those outside the USA (and probably many inside too ;) ...
The USA laws don't work that way; the first amendment *only*
"Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> writes:
> Those goons
Can we stop with the name-calling, please?
> (What they are extremely comfortable with is---doh!---using the
> work without paying anyone.)
As one of the goon-workers, I (and my whole group) get paid by our
"Alfred M. Szmidt" writes:
> There is indeed no such group in the GNU project,
There is a GNU Assembly. You may disagree with it, or wish it didn't
exist, or have complaints about its purpose or status, but it exists.
Denying this doesn't help resolve any of the issues around it.
And I really
"Alfred M. Szmidt" writes:
> Because you disagree with a message is not a reason to reject it.
> In either case, there is no such thing as a "GNU assembly",
Wow, such hypocrisy. Just because you disagree with the GNU Assembly
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There's a huge difference between an armed insurrection at a political
capital, and people expressing their opinions calmly in writing
(regardless of what those opinions are, or how much you sensationalize
them). Choosing such highly "emotionally charged" words when making
such unfair
Akira Urushibata writes:
> In my opinion the FSF leaders are not doing things in the right order.
People are quite able to do more than one thing at a time.
> until those who are spreading misinformation are brought to justice.
Beware - a lot of what you think is "misinformation", others
"Alfred M. Szmidt" writes:
> Depending on someone else to even be able to run
> your program is something we defintily do not want.
Are you arguing against Javascript, or SaaS, or just proprietary Saas?
Consider the following:
You have a Free Software browser which you built yourself. It
>>> technology which is designed to be slaveware and dependent un insecure
>> This is a value judgement
>
>
> Right, being a slave is bad. That IS a value judgement. Values - that
> those are good. Get some!
Since you insist on misinterpreting, let me clarify.
The value judgement is that
shulie writes:
> technology which is designed to be slaveware and dependent un insecure
This is a value judgement on the developer writing the software, not the
technology of the software itself. Please do not confuse the two.
For example, I regularly use a javascript application that is
aviva writes:
> On 3/14/21 6:18 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> Thus, in a way you are arguing AGAINST the
>> user's freedom.
>
> No - I am arguing against creating a system where you lose control of
> your computer and it is over run by hackers because of poor deisgn.
> NO
aviva writes:
> On 3/14/21 6:18 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> If WebAssembly or Javascript can be used in a
>> way that honors the four freedoms,
>
> But it can't...period. And in the real world , it doesn't. We don't
> promote software that hurts peopleperiod.
It can a
aviva writes:
> On 3/14/21 6:18 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> This application totally honors the four freedoms,
>
> No - it doesn't actually. It fails value one that the user is in
> control of there system.
How so? I downloaded the sources and ran them on my own system. How am
I not in control?
Akira Urushibata writes:
> Mr. Kaz Kylheku claims that artifacts that never existed in reality
> may show up when images are magnified. If anybody believes that this
> is true, please show me examples. I believe they would be of interest
> to follow list members.
Recent demonstrations of AI
Akira Urushibata writes:
> When you get something for free, you are supposed to say thanks.
While I agree with you in general, when you say "you are supposed to..."
you are restricting freedoms.
When you choose to write free software, you choose to let people use it
without quid pro quo[*]. If
"Alfred M. Szmidt" writes:
> 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
43 matches
Mail list logo
