Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

Recently we have been "invited" to approve a thing which is being called the "social contract". If the text is read, it will be seen that it has three parts. The first part is the four freedoms established by Stallman many years ago. No problem there, we all agree with those. Or do we? Well

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:50:28PM +0100, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > Le samedi 15 février 2020, 19:07:36 CET Daniel Pocock a écrit : > > Maybe you could call your new group "GNU Europe", > > But many of them are USAians, aren’t they? No - they are all in France as far as I can well.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

Not - they are adding GNU to their names, at the behest of GNU, as a matter of fact. They are not claiming to be leaders of the GNU project and purposely breaking GNU policy. Just because an organization allows you to use their trademark for a purpose, that doesn't give someone permition to rip

Re: Richard Stallman should be reinstated to President of the FSF

I support this idea! 在 2020年02月17日 03:42, Ruben Safir 写道: Richard Stallman was bullied from his position at MIT and FSF and the FSF should take the couragous move of reinstating Richard as President of the FSF Nobody but Stallman can do what he does, as a spokeman, and strategic planner to

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

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

Re: Endorsement of the GNU Social Contract

Hello, On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:26:12PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Today is “I Love Free Software” day and we want to thank you for being > part of GNU! nice point, I also love free software, even a few days later! So thanks to all GNU people, among others, for providing us with free

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

On 2020-02-20 10:06, a...@gnu.org wrote: I'm not saying that GNU will necessarily stop growing and decline. What I'm afraid is that it might just become insignificant compared to others, and thus its voice for the 4 freedoms become less and less heard. I think everyone would agree that

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

On 2020-02-20 11:42, Andreas R. wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:45:02PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > On the flip side, an argument is made that your initiative might make GNU > more exclusionary because of the extra conditions on what it takes to be a > part of it. At some point you have

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

Alexandre François Garreau, le ven. 21 févr. 2020 11:59:42 +0100, a ecrit: > Le jeudi 20 février 2020, 18:39:52 CET Samuel Thibault a écrit : > > Alfred M. Szmidt, le jeu. 20 févr. 2020 12:32:16 -0500, a ecrit: > > > How does that have to do with the overall project leadership, which > > > hasn't

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

Alexandre François Garreau, le ven. 21 févr. 2020 12:39:37 +0100, a ecrit: > It is defeatist because it departs from the basic idea you’ll *have* to > exclude someone at some point. No solution will ever be found. Yes. Been there a few times, had to resort to it, I remember a case where it was

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

Hi Eli, On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 12:09 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Ludovic Courtès > > > > See the timeline at: > > > > https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback > > If, as that page says, the proposed "contract" is entirely voluntary, > then what is its significance? IOW, what would

Re: Endorsement of the GNU Social Contract

Hi GNU, I, maintainer of GNU Classpath, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at . Thanks, Mark signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

Hello John, On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:54:19PM -0500, John Darrington wrote: > Therefore I'm extremely dissapointed that recently a small group of > GNU maintainers has started spreading nagative and misleading propaganda > about others within GNU this is not founded in any argument, but seems

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

Le dimanche 16 février 2020, 21:27:51 CET Ruben Safir a écrit : > It is objected to and resisted by the GNU > Project. No. rms said people could publish whatever they want, and GNU project doesn’t oppose a such initiative, but doesn’t support either. What it object to, is calling it “GNU”.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

They got rid of RMS because "the industry" (working white men) don't want to see a repeat of the Cisco suit, where RMS was victorious, and won big. The rest of the current FSF are do-nothings and won't sue anyone for copyright infringement of the GPL. On 2020-02-21 16:27, Ruben Safir wrote:

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

On 21.02.2020 12:09, Eli Zaretskii wrote: From: Ludovic Courtès Cc: "Alfred M. Szmidt" , gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org, christo...@poncy.fr Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:02:34 +0100 I don't see the opposing viewpoints reflected in your documentation anywhere. You have formed a subgroup, discussed

Re: avoiding the bias in vocabulary

On 19/02/2020 23:26, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > Le samedi 15 février 2020, 18:56:21 CET Daniel Pocock a écrit : > >> There are a lot of words used in various discussions today that have > >> some bias. > >> > >> For example, the word /ban/ is quite disparaging to the victim. Simply

torture in online communities, FSF, Debian, etc

There is news today about expanding the definition of torture to include the psychological abuse we see in online communities. They specifically talk about the practices of shaming and humiliating people, as we've seen in FSF abusing RMS and Debian abusing a number of volunteers. Misquoting

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

On 2020-02-20 02:07, Dmitry Gutov wrote: On 20.02.2020 11:47, Ludovic Courtès wrote: I think it’s important for GNU hackers as a group to be able to reflect on the project’s procedures and discuss whether/how to improve them. So what GNU hackers who disagree with you lot on this or other

Re: Endorsement of the Social Contract 1.0

On 2020-02-20 05:43, Ludovic Courtès wrote: Hello, I, co-maintainer of GNU Guix, GNU Guile, the GNU Shepherd, and GNU Guile-RPC, and a contributor to other GNU packages, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at: https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract This endorsement

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

On 21.02.2020 10:07, Ludovic Courtès wrote: I don’t think so, but I’d rather emphasize “symbiosis” with some projects than disagreements with others. Oh well. So I'm yet to witness a practical disagreement that you have with RMS.

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

> From: Ludovic Courtès > Cc: "Alfred M. Szmidt" , gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org, > christo...@poncy.fr > Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:02:34 +0100 > > > I don't see the opposing viewpoints reflected in your documentation > > anywhere. You have formed a subgroup, discussed your views in private, > > and

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

Dmitry Gutov skribis: > On 20.02.2020 15:12, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> As I see it, the point of the Social Contract you’re referring to is a >> commitment to work hand in hand with our natural allies. These could be >> projects that build software the GNU system or GNU applications rely on, >>

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

Hi Dmitry, Dmitry Gutov skribis: > On 20.02.2020 11:47, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> I think it’s important for GNU hackers as a group to be able to reflect >> on the project’s procedures and discuss whether/how to improve them. > > So what GNU hackers who disagree with you lot on this or other >