Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
On 4/28/21 1:35 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > What exactly? Naming a person 4 times while commenting their actions? No , for falsely accusing someone of sexually assualt and approving rape when you know it is just not true. Furthermore, how can anyone trust them with GNU licensing standards when they can't stop stepping on the GNU tradmark?
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
> In general, I don't find it easy to find source code for package > "hello". Don't know what you're talking about. It's very easy to get source code for a package. For example, $ guix build -S hello signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
Jean Louis writes: > By the way, could you please update the license on this page: > https://gnu.tools/en/documents/free-software/ > > The page is mentioning "open source" that was never in the original > article for free software here: > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and original article is > licensed under Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2019, 2021 Free > Software Foundation, Inc. This page is licensed under a Creative > Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. -- which > means, that you are required legally: > > - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and > indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable > manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you > or your use. > > There is no URL to the original article, in fact there is no URL or > hyperlink to any GNU.org page, no proper attribution, no license, > and no indication of modification. You are required to respect > copyrights. This makes me doubt if Guix really respects FSF FSDG. If they cannot respect free software licenses, maybe they include non-free software. That is why I proposed in 2019 that approved distros do not audit themselves for freedom. A third party should. But Donald Robertson has delayed with different excuses over time. John Sullivan also decided to overlook this. They just bounced it back on me, instead of taking action as FSF should do. I wonder why they have so much decision power in FSF and not the board.
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <[email protected]> [2021-04-29 10:30]: > A code of conduct document is little more than a condensed set > of corporate or governmental HR policies, disguised as some > sort of "organically grown" community document. Code of conduct is used in an organization with employees is fundamentally different to organizations with arbitrary volunteers. Corporate policy is to exchange with employees, here is the salary, and in exchange we need the work, and work has to be conducted by specific manner, for example, don't spit on the floor. Those corporate Code of conducts are not politics focused, neither majority of such promote issues like feminism, gender problems, etc. They are mostly focused on business and how organization conducts its business matters. There exist very clear agreement, legal agreement named employment agreement between the employer and employee. In our voluntary organizations contributors they do not have any formal legal agreement with any employee, often there is no employee and no legal entity. There is no salary for contributors in free software projects. There is no direct dependency. Sometimes there are donations. Those who promote code of conduct speak of wanting diversity. But in the same time they also speak of not tolerating diversity. It is contradiction in itself. If I want diversity, I want diversity. I will then tolerate well behaved people and bad mannered people. That is diversity for me. I can immediately think of carnevals, Mardi Grass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mardi_Gras, open air concerts, and similar public gatherings. There is special feeling coming with it. On such public gatherings there are all kinds of people, some will be drunk, some will be funny, there will be abusive and sexist people. Nobody likes worst happening, but that is true diversity. Tolerance is key word. Not assuming bad faith just because somebody is upset or made some sex related joke. Code of conduct is strictly a document authorizing thought police to exclude people out of "their diversity", example from Guix code of conduct: https://github.com/pjotrp/guix/blob/master/CODE-OF-CONDUCT "We are committed to making participation in this project a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of level of experience, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, or nationality." The above statement is obviously not true, as it is impossible for a project maintainer to know what is "harassment free" experience for everyone. By the way one of them D.T. tried harassing me online from his farm, behind computer, and beyond the GNU project but declined meeting me in person to solve the issue. It is very easy to appear brave behind the keyboard. Why would I need any "Code of Conduct" to help me with the harasser? I don't. I can solve issue myself, there is legal system, there is police, there is recourse for that. I need no gang of bullies to protect me from bullies. If bully comes along, I know how to deal with one. It is very fine to tell people to stop with harassment. What is not fine is the open interpretation on what harassment is, and that a small group is allowed to do basically anything they wish and want by justifying their actions by Code of conduct. Of course, in anonymous way. Somebody complained, you said something wrong, we kick you out. No expectedhearing, no expected confrontation with accuser, thus open to misinterpretations on what happened. More quotes from Guix code of conduct: "Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:" The above statement only lists "examples" which means that interpretation on what is wrong and right is left to project maintainers. We already had Terms of Service for every website, in general private websites can simply kick out any person for whatever reason. I find that better, not necessarily just, but better to say "this is ours and we will do what we want" rather than giving appearance of some just and public cause. To say these are "examples" makes it open for vague misinterpretations and thus injustices. > * The use of sexualized language or imagery Humans are sexual. We love sex. At least majority of us loves sex. I cannot possibly imagine why any kind of mentioning of sex or sexualized language would be "breach" of behavior. There are vulgar expressions, every decent conference should warn people who express themselves vulgary. But to prohibit any use of sexualized language or imagery would IMHO also obstruct freedom zero. It becomes practically impossible to create programs that recognize coppulation on pictures and in websites, as the sole mentioning of those programs would be in violation of the so called code of conduct. It becomes practically impossible in such projects with vague codes of conducts to make software vibrators, and other sex toys, sexual chat, and dating sites
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
* [email protected] [2021-04-29 20:47]: > This makes me doubt if Guix really respects FSF FSDG. If they cannot > respect free software licenses, maybe they include non-free > software. I am sure that Guix would remove non-free software from system when such is discovered. Guix will become major system to bootstrap other distributions. There are many good points. But licensing issues for software packages are not solved IMHO. I think nobody reads those licenses. Example is easy: $ guix install hello in /gnu/store the license is there "COPYING" and is fine. "If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements." In this example, when I get hello package there is no clear direction next to the object code saying where and how to find corresponding source. On the Guix manual, I cannot find a reference: https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/Concept-Index.html There are 2 mentions of "source" but do not help in getting the source code for particular package. I know that sources' locations are embedded in package description, but that cannot be said to be "clear direction" next to object code. Package description is source code definitely not readable by everyone. There is URL like mirror:// and there is scheme which one need to understand to find the URL to the source. In general, I don't find it easy to find source code for package "hello". There may be a way, but it is not aligned with the license. License is violated how I see it. -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
* [email protected] [2021-04-29 19:27]: > Jean Louis writes: > > > By the way, could you please update the license on this page: > > https://gnu.tools/en/documents/free-software/ > > > > The page is mentioning "open source" that was never in the original > > article for free software here: > > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and original article is > > licensed under Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2019, 2021 Free > > Software Foundation, Inc. This page is licensed under a Creative > > Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. -- which > > means, that you are required legally: > > > > - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and > > indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable > > manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you > > or your use. > > > > There is no URL to the original article, in fact there is no URL or > > hyperlink to any GNU.org page, no proper attribution, no license, > > and no indication of modification. You are required to respect > > copyrights. > > This makes me doubt if Guix really respects FSF FSDG. If they cannot > respect free software licenses, maybe they include non-free software. > That is why I proposed in 2019 that approved distros do not audit > themselves for freedom. A third party should. But Donald Robertson has > delayed with different excuses over time. John Sullivan also decided to > overlook this. They just bounced it back on me, instead of taking > action as FSF should do. I wonder why they have so much decision power > in FSF and not the board. I have tried making that point back in 2016. I am not sure if Guix's automated system respect licenses, I think it does not. Here is message from 2016 to Ludovic, it was private, I never got an answer on that. I wonder why. [Wed Apr 6 2016] Hello Ludovic. I wish to tell you in private. [09:32] I would rather tell you in private for GPL2 conformance [09:53] as when distributing binaries, it is not enough to provide link to original sources [09:54] also when patching original sources, that is modification [09:55] I guess that functions shall be made to provide: storage (on servers) for modified sources, to be downloaded later. Or 3-years written offers. anyway there must be storage for each version that was ever downloaded as substitute, there shall be storage. [09:56] and there shall be link in the package definitions if you ask me, to such source storage, or there must be written 3 years offer... [09:57] so I guess that there are new functions to be made... IMHO, those issues are not solved today. I may be wrong. However, I think I raised that issue on Guix IRC too, but it was just ignored. Issue is however open and ignored for 5 years 23 days. -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
* Federico Leva (Nemo) [2021-04-28 20:35]: > Il 28/04/21 18:27, Andreas Enge ha scritto: > > This cannot be qualified but as personal harrassment. > > What exactly? Naming a person 4 times while commenting their > actions? But I am sorry, I don't remember ever writing like 4 times Ludo's name, I really don't. Either that was not quoted well, maybe it was changed, or is something else. Why should I write 4 times Ludo's name in any email? I don't get it. Somebody help me. -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
Il 28/04/21 18:27, Andreas Enge ha scritto: This cannot be qualified but as personal harrassment. What exactly? Naming a person 4 times while commenting their actions? Do you propose to apply such a standard universally, e.g. to an email criticising actions by an FSF or GNU office holder? (I might have missed something in Jean Louis' message, I admit I've only read it quickly.) As a reminder, we have the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html Jean Louis, please consider whether certain expressions, for instance "like children", may sound like personal attacks. Andreas, please consider whether expressions like "hate email", which seem to attribute intent, may be needlessly harsh and inflammatory and therefore fall short of the standards proposed by the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines. Best regards, Federico
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <[email protected]> [2021-04-29 10:30]: > A code of conduct document is little more than a condensed set > of corporate or governmental HR policies, disguised as some > sort of "organically grown" community document. Every organization may have its own codes, variety of codes are out there, and there is nothing wrong in attempt to harmonize behavior of its members. Here we have the context that is different from commonly used organizational codes, the new context encompasses new politics such as feminism, gender problems, and may be construed often as a general method for thought police. Say something wrong and you are done. Problem at hand here is that we have various people, some people are more sensitive than others, but don't want and cannot express themselves. Some others will come along and inevitably have different opinions. Those sensitive want to survive well and without being offended, Code of Conduct mostly serves those who are unable to tell others how they feel, why they feel so, and unable to provide concrete objective reasons for it. As Codes of Conducts are very generalized, not well defined such as attorney made agreements, they are often abused by their own authors or by the managers who wrote those Codes of Conducts, they allow wide range of interpretations and thus misrepresentations. Example is the Guix' code of conduct as adopted from Contributor Code of Conduct: https://github.com/pjotrp/guix/blob/master/CODE-OF-CONDUCT Where it says that they are committed to avoid (among other things): - Personal attacks - Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments - Public or private harassment Despite that Guix has its own code of conduct and GNU project does not have code of conduct, in other words they are not same entity, Guix finds it appropriate to gather group of people, incite them to provoke personal attacks, annoy others, and make derogatory comments on RMS: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ and to tell "we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to." That is "derogatory" statement as by definition 1. derogative, derogatory, disparaging -- (expressive of low opinion; "derogatory comments"; "disparaging remarks about the new house"). Despite that it is quite clear how people are in support for RMS, the small group of Code of Conduct people continues with their derogatory statements. What is even more interesting is that they use the subdomain guix.gnu.org which is on GNU.org domain and are able to make such derogatory statements, and personal attacks. None of them signers of those defamatory statement did not tell of any personal issue with RMS, neither how they wanted to handle it in a good faith. It is personal attack and public harassment. It is in contradiction to Guix's Code of Conduct. The Guix's code of conduct and so many others may have this clause: "Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported by contacting a project maintainer at [email protected]. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. Maintainers are obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident." That clause basically say that accuser will be held anonymous and maintainers or whoever will be judges to punish the accused. This is in contradiction to the legal system and established norms of our civilization, including any mediation process, that accuser and accused must be brought together in a hearing to make issues evident, without words, without evidences and hearing, nobody shall be considered criminal neither should be accused. Now GNU came first, then came Guix under GNU umbrella. GNU does not have Code of Conduct, Guix has. Would GNU have Code of Conduct, that Guix statement would be removed right away. It is not removed, as the purpose of GNU is not politics, but distribution of free software. When looking at purposes, the purpose is stronger and has to be supported foremost. GNU project does not, obviously it does not practice the methods of thought police. Here is a story of injustice where Code of Conduct has been applied and how cruel it comes over: From: https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/ > Summary: NumFOCUS found I violated their Code of Conduct (CoC) at > JupyterCon because my talk was not “kind”, because I said Joel Grus > was “wrong” regarding his opinion that Jupyter Notebook is not a good > software development environment. Joel (who I greatly respect, and > consider an asset to the data science community) was not involved in > NumFOCUS’s action, was not told about it, and did not support > it. Nu
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
* Andreas Enge [2021-04-28 18:28]: > I call out to the moderators of these mailing lists, if moderation indeed > still exists there, to act against such hate mail by Jean Louis singling > out an individual whose actions they disagree with: I have no hate against Ludo, I admire his work and welcome him. It is only that I state my opinion. Defamation is false accusation of na offense, or malicious misrepresentatioin of someone's words or actions. I am fully free to say that Ludovic is leader in Guix and that he used Guix project for defamatory statements on GNU project and RMS. That statement of mine is however, so far from any hate. I don't find it proper as he practices whatever defamatory politics on GNU pages. Please remove it from GNU pages, stop misrepresenting GNU, and I will not say here nothing, as your personal opinions are personal. Then we can take it elsewhere. Please don't whine if I mention Ludovic, it was not me who started defamation in the first place. He and you, and all the group, you have to bear with the consequences. People will talk. Bear with consequences. My opinion is mild. I really don't hate anybody of these people, why would I? I find them all intelligent, but I call them defamatory for the reason, as that is what they do for as long as they are publishing that statement. You incited division in GNU project and keep dividing GNU project. Yes, I find it malicious. You called people into the AntiGNU assemble, not because they "suddenly discovered the domain" -- but because you organized them, you are dividing GNU project for your political reasons. And I can bet you never confronted RMS to speak about whatever issue you have, so far now you have no objective issue, just vague issues. Much of it has been already clarified here: https://stallmansupport.org/ None of you have so far apologized or retracted your defamatory statements. You come to GNU mailing list with intention to divide more people, where it is clear that you want to cause illegal take over of non-profit corporation. Then you tell me I am the hater? I am very surprised on that. Can you respect the legal documents of non-profit named FSF? Can you understand that it is legally founded non-profit that publishes its statements annually, and that the only real impact caused was by your group and similar defamators when they caused RMS to resign? How many speeches did RMS hold after resignation? Much less than before. You have to view straight into consequences of your doings. To tell" the word "defamation" is warning for you. You can also get sued, but you enjoy the privilege of kindness where somebody values your projects and your contributions more than the personal image and fame. You as group basically abuse elder respectful person with impunity that is to me not understandable. And so far none of you have any direct issue to solve with RMS, and if you would have, why don't you solve it? It is cancel culture. This is the intersection of people who signed defamatory statement on GNU Project October 7, 2019, and who are now also speaking on the mailing list in the AntiGNU Assembly: The defamatory statement on GNU project The AntiGNU Assembly has about same and RMS, as published on Guix project initiators, where it is obvious that website, hosted under GNU.org, they disgruntled feelings come from October 7, 2019, has following failure to understand that RMS is on people (and more than that):board: Ludovic Courtès (GNU Guix, GNU Guile) Ludovic Courtès (GNU Guile, GNU Guile-RPC, GNU Guix, GNU Shepherd) Ricardo Wurmus (GNU Guix, GNU GWL) Ricardo Wurmus (Guile-Debbugs, GNU Guix, Guix Workflow Language) Matt Lee (GNU Social) Andreas Enge (GNU MPC) Andreas Enge (GNU MPC, GNU Guix) Samuel Thibault (GNU Hurd, GNU libc)Samuel Thibault (GNU Hurd) Carlos O'Donell (GNU libc) Carlos O'Donell (GNU C Library, GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)) Andy Wingo (GNU Guile) Andy Wingo (Guile-OpenGL, Guile-GNOME, GNU Guile) Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso (GNU Octave) Mark Wielaard (GNU Classpath) Mark J. Wielaard (GNU C Library, GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), GNU Classpath) Ian Lance Taylor (GCC, GNU Binutils) Werner Koch (GnuPG) Werner Koch (GNU Libgcrypt, GnuPG) Daiki Ueno (GNU gettext Christopher Lemmer Webber Christopher Lemmer Webber (8sync, GNU MediaGoblin) Jan Nieuwenhuizen (GNU Mes Jan Nieuwenhuizen (GNU LilyPond, GNU Mes) John Wiegley (GNU Emacs) Tom Tromey (GCC, GDB) Jeff Law (GCC, Binutils — Jeff Law (GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)) Han-Wen Nienhuys (GNU LilyPond) Han-Wen Nienhuys (GNU LilyPond) > Am Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 10:12:13AM +0300 schrieb Jean Louis: > > Ludovic Courtès (Guix) > > Ludovic Courtès > > Ludovic Courtès > > Ludovic Courtès I never wrote this, that is not my email, I did not write that above. > This cannot be qualified but as personal ha
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
* Federico Leva (Nemo) [2021-04-28 20:35]: > Jean Louis, please consider whether certain expressions, for instance "like > children", may sound like personal attacks. I did not want to tell anything bad about children as they usually behave somehow to the level of their age. In fact I wanted to use the word "immature" as in the meaning 1. (2) immature -- (characteristic of a lack of maturity; "immature behavior"), so I hereby apologize, and this word may apply to me as well, especially in this paragraph. Actions done by adults I consider to demand objectiveness. When confronted to address the issue and person does not address the issue, then I have no other choice but to say that behavior is immature. I did ask Ludovic to explain, he did not explain, he has no issue to tell. So the defamatory statements are there with intentional neglect of truth. My comments and talk to Ludo can be seen here: http://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2019-10-07.log as under nick jmarciano and I asked Ludo, if he can tell me facts over the defamatory statement how "Stallman's behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project" (is what Ludo's group is defaming) and Ludo said, no, Guix chat is not place for the debate. But Guix website is place for debate, but Guix chate is not place for debate. Of course I am surprised as in Guix management there is definitely no transparency neither call for any kind of dialog, like what is taking place on this mailing list. That does not work there. I asked them to turn on comments on that page, so that if it is "collective statement" how the defamatory AntiGNU group wish to say, that it really becomes collectively commented. I have asked many times, Ludo refused to tell me. So I asked again, he refused to tell me. Then he said he does not like abort joke. But abort joke, did it really undermine any core value of GNU project? Sorry, I cannot see that. > Andreas, please consider whether expressions like "hate email", > which seem to attribute intent, may be needlessly harsh and > inflammatory and therefore fall short of the standards proposed by > the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines. I really don't hate this people, I am arguing why they are misrepresenting themselves, that is all. You want your own space, make it, but don't misrepresent yourself. Don't you see how much harm you do? Of course that group cannot see that. And none of them is making free software speech, they make software, great, but none of them promotes free software philosophy neither links to GNU.org pages. The AntiGNU assembly opened up because they wanted to do the division of GNU project, would RMS stay in FSF -- but RMS resigned. There was almost no activity on gnu.tools website in 2020. Those "guys" are not even guys, nobody attended the mailing list. It is just this: https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/2020/10/ Until Ludovic Courtès started it: https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/SMFKD7M34VUTUW45MSO4UOWL4C7V5FQT/ "Like many I’m astonished by the FSF’s decision to reinstate RMS (who actually still had voting rights, I recently learned)." Comment: is not like many, it is group of people who have different politics, who then bad mouth RMS and invite quite innocent people into your divisiveness. As majority is supporting RMS: https://rms-support-letter.github.io/ I don't know what you are still mocking there if you respect some kind of polls or democratic public opinion. But you don't. "I support the call in the open letter to RMS¹ “for the removal of the entire Board of the Free Software Foundation.” Until it has cleaned house, this foundation can no longer pretend to represent the free software movement." -- what a bunch of nonsense! Ludovic Courtès never gave any, not even one, published free software philosophy speech. He gave speeches on Guix and technicalities. And now he is the one who says that! This is illegal take over attempt of a non-profit corporation that DOES its job very well. Audited financial statements available: https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/financial-statements/FinancialStatements-FY2019.pdf Is there any audited financial statement of Guix? Where is the accountability? More from Ludo: "I also support the call to remove RMS “from all leadership positions, including the GNU Project” -- sorry, when I read this, I just remember those jokes with Minion guys, nobody will undertand me, just skip it. It is ridiculous. I am not calling Ludo to take his shoes out because I want to slip into his shoes. Of course I find it disgraceful by definition. Definition from Wordnet: 1. disgraceful, scandalous, shameful, shocking -- (giving offense to moral sensibilities and injurious to reputation; "scandalous behavior"; "the wicked rascally shameful conduct of the bankrupt"- Thackeray; "the most shocking book of its time") Yes, I find it shocking that one lacks all the feelings and comes along to tell project l
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
I call out to the moderators of these mailing lists, if moderation indeed still exists there, to act against such hate mail by Jean Louis singling out an individual whose actions they disagree with: Am Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 10:12:13AM +0300 schrieb Jean Louis: > Ludovic Courtès (Guix) > Ludovic Courtès > Ludovic Courtès > Ludovic Courtès This cannot be qualified but as personal harrassment. Ironically, they are making a very good point why we think that GNU needs a new start with the GNU Assembly; and this initiative is not that of a single person, but https://gnu.tools/en/people/ lists more than 30 people from the GNU project supporting it. Andreas
