Mike Gerwitz said: > > That it works on your side, it means not it works on someone's > > else side. > > There's no guarantee that the Internet will work at all on someone > else's side.
It's a perverse injustice to neglect the difference between someone not supplying a service (such as Internet), and someone taking cable cutters to sabotage an otherwise working service. It puts your actual bias on display when you neglect this distinction. A control-freak is dictating terms on how the Internet shall be used. GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. has proactively empowered that control-freak, to the detriment of the public who trusted GRFI. > It's unfortunate, but ultimately, it is just a convenience that the > user can get the software online. You could just as well say it's an "inconvenience" that someone must code their own SDR, and get the necessary training if needed. > In the early days of GNU, you'd request a physical copy via mail. That wasn't discriminatory. They didn't say liberals had to go through those hoops, while registered republicans could download it, for example. In the case at hand, they've separated the GNU community, and imposed "inconvenience" and diminished freedom from the one group who chooses to be free from excessive surveillance. > You can send me an e-mail and I'll send you a copy. You can mail me > some writable media with postage and I'll mail it back with a copy, > and maybe throw in some other GNU software as a bonus. Are you willing to repackage the website-hosted documentation that is excluded from the git-downloadable package? Would you mind doing that periodically, since the web-published content changes? If someone wants to edit the gnuradio wiki, can they send you update instructions? > The situation isn't a good one, but let's stop with these > accusations "There's a problem, but let's not fix it" is how I read your statement. At the moment, there is only 1 GNU project that has betrayed the public trust, out of hundreds. Whether you realize it or not, your comments attempt to support a precedent that will make it easy for more GNU projects to become exclusive clubs in walled-gardens, while at the same time accepting charitable contributions of code and money from the public relies on them. > that have already been clarified, even by rms himself. RMS has clarified *his stance*. It's important to realize that he is not defending user freedom, but rather the GNU project that has become freedom-hostile, for which FSF is responsible. Clarity on the status quo is only useful to the extent that we realize what must change to restore and retain the public trust amid new threats that control people who (quite rightly) don't want to be controlled. What is clear is that we've not yet reached that level of clarity on the problem as a whole. > If the disagreement is the use of CloudFlare, talk about CloudFlare. > It isn't a software freedom issue. CloudFlare is the instrument by which software freedom 0 and a long list of civil liberties are being denied. It's also the instrument by which security is compromised. The public doesn't have a contract with CloudFlare. CloudFlare works for GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. It is GRFI that is (or masquerades as) a guardian of a public resource with a duty to the public. CloudFlare answers only to their customer. The advice for the public (not GRFI) to talk to CF is misplaced. -- Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable. List archives will be monitored.
