Le dimanche 27 octobre 2019, 18:55:59 CET Alfred M. Szmidt a écrit :
> that
> "stubborn governance" is what is needed to keep things free. If
> anything, we should have even more stubborn goverance -- and that can
> only be done by a trusted group of people that are willing to uphold
> the values
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
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?
* Jean Louis:
> * Samuel Thibault [2019-10-27 16:33]:
>> Alfred M. Szmidt, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 13:56:00 -0400, a ecrit:
>> > we have participants that clearly do not agree with the GNU projects
>> > stance on an issue.
>> >
>> > This shows the error quite clearly in why having the community
>>
Hello Mark,
thanks for pointing out this large collection of pages to read! Indeed
there is very little in terms of structure, but still a few gems that
we should reference.
I would like to additonally read some external document, the Debian Social
Contract. Debian is clearly very successful as
Debian's social contract does define it in a different way than
yours, yes. And that is what the commmunity enforced, and it did
not fail to do so: the main Debian archive only contains free
software and some references to non-free software. That is what was
promised, and that is
Excuse me, do GNU actually have precedents when the âstubborn
governanceâ was proved to be needed to keep things free?
Readline, Objective-C backend, not allowing propietery hackery with
GCC, GPLv3 and Tivioization, Emacs and plugins, come to mind.
Fighting non-free software is always a
* Ruben Safir [2019-10-22 12:42]:
> Appointment has always worked. It is a volunteer organization, so your
> choices are usually thin. If a project is of interest, them RMS can
> appoint someone, as he does now. And when he wants to step down he can
> appoint someone to take over his roles,
* Samuel Thibault [2019-10-27 16:33]:
> Then we can write that in a GNU social contract, instead of having to
> rely on stubborn governance.
Stubborn governance or however you name it is still successful
governance.
--
Thanks,
Jean Louis
P.S. I would like that you give facts and not
* Samuel Thibault [2019-10-27 16:33]:
> Alfred M. Szmidt, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 13:56:00 -0400, a ecrit:
> > we have participants that clearly do not agree with the GNU projects
> > stance on an issue.
> >
> > This shows the error quite clearly in why having the community
> > deciding
* Ruben Safir [2019-10-22 10:18]:
> On 10/22/19 4:31 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > That is a different organization model.
>
>
> Yeah, I'm not interested in anything that reduces RMS's influence and
> control of GNU at this point. I think he has been abused and I just
> don't carer anymore. If
* František Kučera [2019-10-22 04:44]:
> So if this is to have a chance of success, there must be a rigid
> (immutable) constitution which guarantees the principles in the long
> term. (Sure, immutability has its pitfalls, but if the principles are to
> change, it is necessary to come up with a
* 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 documentation. We are not going to
* Mark Wielaard [2019-10-21 20:27]:
> I would like to see GNU organized in such a way that GNU volunteers,
> who devote so much time and energy to GNU, will be able to grow and
> become the next generation of GNU leaders through some kind of
> apprenticeship. People should always be on the
* Samuel Thibault [2019-10-24 16:55]:
> What is important here is this:
>
> > And that is the exact type word wiggling that we shouldn't accept
> > here, and the exact reason why this project is run the way it is run.
>
> And that is where a social contract would allow to enforce it, without
>
* Carlos O'Donell [2019-10-22 10:38]:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:21 AM Ruben Safir wrote:
> >
> > On 10/22/19 4:31 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > That is a different organization model.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, I'm not interested in anything that reduces RMS's influence and
> > control of GNU at this
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
> > > 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 documentation. We are not going to reach
> > agreement on these points
> The principles of this project are quite clearly written down, and
> http://gnu.org/ contains all of them.
If it was clearly written down, we would not need strong governance to
enforce it.
The governance comes from Chief GNUisance not from the community.
That is very much
Alfred M. Szmidt, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 13:56:00 -0400, a ecrit:
> we have participants that clearly do not agree with the GNU projects
> stance on an issue.
>
> This shows the error quite clearly in why having the community
> deciding philosophical topics of the GNU project is a grave danger.
> we have participants that clearly do not agree with the GNU projects
> stance on an issue.
>
> This shows the error quite clearly in why having the community
> deciding philosophical topics of the GNU project is a grave danger.
No, this shows that the philosophy is not that
> 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 governance -- that
"stubborn governance" is what is
Alfred M. Szmidt, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 13:30:38 -0400, a ecrit:
> The principles of this project are quite clearly written down, and
> http://gnu.org/ contains all of them.
If it was clearly written down, we would not need strong governance to
enforce it.
See
Samuel Thibault, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 18:23:28 +0100, a ecrit:
> Alfred M. Szmidt, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 13:07:35 -0400, a ecrit:
> > > My view is that when I burn a Debian CD, on it there is only free
> > > software and links to non-free software (which is *not* on the
> > > CD). And that is what
One of the issues we have to face is that Richard sometimes acts in
an authoritative kind of way over issues he doesn't have, or the
community doesn't give him, authority of.
He does have that authority, it has been explained over and over and
over again.
And that is a problem for
> > > Debian renegaded on their goal of being a 100% free software system,
> > > they now include non-free software.
> >
> > What is called "Debian" does not include the non-free archive, that
> > archive is not enabled by default, the user has to make an explicit
> > action to
The principles of this project are quite clearly written down, and
http://gnu.org/ contains all of them.
Alfred M. Szmidt, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 14:10:46 -0400, a ecrit:
> > > we have participants that clearly do not agree with the GNU projects
> > > stance on an issue.
> > >
> > > This shows the error quite clearly in why having the community
> > > deciding philosophical topics of the GNU project is
Alfred M. Szmidt, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 13:07:35 -0400, a ecrit:
> > My view is that when I burn a Debian CD, on it there is only free
> > software and links to non-free software (which is *not* on the
> > CD). And that is what the Debian social contract allows.
>
> That is the view of the GNU
> 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 documentation. We are not going to reach
agreement on these points any time soon.
That is
> Your disagreement and not getting what you want is not a "problem",
> not for 8 years and not for 30 years..
Refusing to call it a problem doesn't mean that it's not a problem.
Likewise, saying that it is a problem doesn't mean that it is.
Alfred M. Szmidt, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 13:07:35 -0400, a ecrit:
> > > 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 documentation. We are not
Hi Brandon,
On Sat, 2019-10-26 at 15:19 +0100, Brandon Invergo wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-21 at 17:08 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > In practice GNU already is mostly a bottom-up organization, where the
> > GNU hackers that do the actual work shape the project, but it would be
> > nice to make it
On Mon, 2019-10-21 at 17:08 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> In practice GNU already is mostly a bottom-up organization, where the
> GNU hackers that do the actual work shape the project, but it would be
> nice to make it more formally so.
As I have already described to you and the others elsewhere,
Mark Wielaard, le ven. 25 oct. 2019 12:20:11 +0200, a ecrit:
> Right. I think what is being objected to is a GNU Social Contract that
> would contain something like this part of the Debian Social Contract
> https://www.debian.org/social_contract
>
>We acknowledge that some of our users
On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 22:50 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Alfred M. Szmidt, le jeu. 24 oct. 2019 16:31:41 -0400, a ecrit:
> > We don't promote non-free software, we don't host non-free software,
> > so clearly things have worked for 30 years where they have not for
> > Debian.
>
> The goals
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
Alfred M. Szmidt, le jeu. 24 oct. 2019 16:31:41 -0400, a ecrit:
> > Alfred M. Szmidt, le jeu. 24 oct. 2019 15:33:51 -0400, a ecrit:
> > > > > The GNU project is not a porject that is suitable for a bottom-up
> > > > > organization -- its mission, and only mission, is to see that the GNU
> > > > >
Alfred M. Szmidt, le jeu. 24 oct. 2019 15:33:51 -0400, a ecrit:
>> The GNU project is not a porject that is suitable for a bottom-up
>> organization -- its mission, and only mission, is to see that the GNU
>> system is and keeps being free software. This has been
* 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 documentation. We are not going to reach
agreement on these points any time soon.
Ruben Safir, le jeu. 24 oct. 2019 16:16:23 -0400, a ecrit:
> When you want to do something your way and RMS disagrees, that is not a
> problem... at least for GNU.
It is a problem for GNU. Saying "if you disagree, leave!" is not going
to help getting people in. I don't think we want to see a GNU
> The GNU project is not a porject that is suitable for a bottom-up
> organization -- its mission, and only mission, is to see that the GNU
> system is and keeps being free software. This has been explained
> ample of times.
I don't see how bottom-up cannot get this. How different
Alfred M. Szmidt, le jeu. 24 oct. 2019 12:51:35 -0400, a ecrit:
> > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 15:12 -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > >I agree. I think in practice many (most?) maintainers not only agree
> > > to
> > >uphold the free software values, but also share them.
> > >
> > > In
On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 15:12 -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>I agree. I think in practice many (most?) maintainers not only agree to
>uphold the free software values, but also share them.
>
> In practise, we cannot know -- making the assumption is dangerous. It
> also
On 10/23/19 10:19 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> He was referring to open source software, not Free Software.
Yes. That's obvious. I'm not sure why you think that's relevant here,
unless you think that I'm mistaken about something here. (I'm not.) Or
you're mistaken about what I actually wrote in
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
>
A few months ago, I wrote a post about how sufficient free software /
the four freedoms are.
On 10/22/19 1:08 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> It has already its constitution in GNU manifesto and other articles of
>> free software philosophy as written by Dr. Richard M. Stallman.
>
> Can we distill this
I agree. I think in practice many (most?) maintainers not only agree to
uphold the free software values, but also share them.
In practise, we cannot know -- making the assumption is dangerous. It
also excludes people who still wish to contribute to the GNU project
but have a different set
RMS is a bus factor of one.
That is true, and that is something that is already being worked on on
reducing. None of this was a grave issue last year, 5 years ago, or
10 years ago it can surley wait a while more. So a bit of patience.
___
Hello,
Mark Wielaard skribis:
> For my own GNU project (some years ago) we did use savannah, but we
> had to give up on lists.gnu.org because it just didn't scale to the
> volume of email that we produced. Savannah didn't provide a wiki, so we
> set one up ourselves, etc. We had setup our own
On Tue, 2019-10-22 at 14:00 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 1:55 PM DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Even if we all agree on the "big picture simple answer" the details and
> > "best practices" are just as important.
> >
> > Do you have any suggestions for filling in these details?
On Tue, 2019-10-22 at 14:54 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 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 that do, just need to check that they really are, and the
> ones that don't, need a
* DJ Delorie [2019-10-22 23:39]:
> > and whoever is loyal to free software philosophy as envisioned
> > by Dr. Richard Stallman,
>
> A constitution would describe this philosophy, though. How do we
> otherwise follow what is only in one person's mind, if not by writing it
> down to share?
* DJ Delorie [2019-10-22 23:39]:
> > There is still much more to be done regarding users' freedom and human
> > rights.
>
> I do not agree that human rights - as its own topic - belongs here,
> except insofar as they directly relate to exercising the Four Freedoms.
> Because software can be an
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
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
Dne 22. 10. 19 v 19:01 DJ Delorie napsal(a):
> Ruben Safir writes:
>> Appointment has always worked.
> …
>
> RMS is a bus factor of one.
>
> …
>
> Every GNU project should ask themselves this question too - is there one
> person who, if they went MIA, would cause the project undue distress?
>
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 1:55 PM DJ Delorie wrote:
> Even if we all agree on the "big picture simple answer" the details and
> "best practices" are just as important.
>
> Do you have any suggestions for filling in these details?
The day-to-day running of things should certainly be documented
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
* Adrienne G. Thompson [2019-10-22 21:15]:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 3:16 AM František Kučera
> wrote:
>
> > The problem with this approach is the risk of hostile takeover. There
> > are corporations (e.g. those that profit from proprietary
> > software/cloud) ... that have almost unlimited
> >
On 10/22/19 10:37 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> Yeah, I'm not interested in anything that reduces RMS's influence and
>> control of GNU at this point. I think he has been abused and I just
>> don't carer anymore. If you don't like how he does things, I would
>> suggest you find other
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 3:16 AM František Kučera
wrote:
> The problem with this approach is the risk of hostile takeover. There
> are corporations (e.g. those that profit from proprietary
> software/cloud) ... that have almost unlimited
> (from our point of view) financial and developers
Hi Mark,
Mark Wielaard skribis:
> Information For Maintainers of GNU Software:
> https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/
>
> GNU Coding Standards:
> https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/
>
> For the basic ideas of GNU and Free Software:
> https://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html
>
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:21 AM Ruben Safir wrote:
>
> On 10/22/19 4:31 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > That is a different organization model.
>
>
> Yeah, I'm not interested in anything that reduces RMS's influence and
> control of GNU at this point. I think he has been abused and I just
> don't
On 10/22/19 4:31 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> That is a different organization model.
Yeah, I'm not interested in anything that reduces RMS's influence and
control of GNU at this point. I think he has been abused and I just
don't carer anymore. If you don't like how he does things, I would
On Tue, 2019-10-22 at 10:16 +0200, František Kučera wrote:
> i.e. there is no guarantee that contributors are faithful to free
> software ideas and that they always work for the benefit of users and
> their freedom.
>
> So if this is to have a chance of success, there must be a rigid
>
Hi Ruben,
On Tue, 2019-10-22 at 01:08 -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On 10/21/19 7:04 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > But let me try to explain how GNU
> > would ideally look like to me.
>
> I don't really care. GNU is what Richard wants it to be and that is
> a good thing.
That is a different
Dne 21. 10. 19 v 17:08 Mark Wielaard napsal(a):
> In practice GNU already is mostly a bottom-up organization, where the
> GNU hackers that do the actual work shape the project, but it would be
> nice to make it more formally so.
BTW: What kind of decisions you are talking about? Could you give
Dne 21. 10. 19 v 17:08 Mark Wielaard napsal(a):
> In practice GNU already is mostly a bottom-up organization, where the
> GNU hackers that do the actual work shape the project, but it would be
> nice to make it more formally so.
The problem with this approach is the risk of hostile takeover.
On 10/21/19 7:04 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> But let me try to explain how GNU
> would ideally look like to me.
I don't really care. GNU is what Richard wants it to be and that is a
good thing.
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches
On 2019-10-21 08:08, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi,
In practice GNU already is mostly a bottom-up organization, where the
GNU hackers that do the actual work shape the project, but it would be
nice to make it more formally so.
That instinctively has me wondering what a "recursive descent"
Hi,
On Mon, 2019-10-21 at 17:16 +0200, Félicien Pillot wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:08:33 +0200
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > In practice GNU already is mostly a bottom-up organization, where
> > the GNU hackers that do the actual work shape the project, but it
> > would be nice to make it more
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:08:33 +0200
Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In practice GNU already is mostly a bottom-up organization, where the
> GNU hackers that do the actual work shape the project, but it would be
> nice to make it more formally so.
>
What do you suggest?
--
Félicien Pillot
Hi,
In practice GNU already is mostly a bottom-up organization, where the
GNU hackers that do the actual work shape the project, but it would be
nice to make it more formally so.
Cheers,
Mark
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
74 matches
Mail list logo
