Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. One of the bad things about Github is that a founder gives speeches that insult the idea of copyleft, with the usual nonsensical argument that people aren't really free unless they can be led to lose their freedom. I don't think that we need to reject Github -- that would be too strong a conclusion. But it certainly is a reason not to promote Github. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, August 15, 2013 5:03 am, Alberto Ruiz wrote: I've been working with the GitHub guys and Andrea Veri on setting up a mirror for all GNOME repos in GitHub. As you can see in the minutes published today, the board discussed the thread about GitHub and the various concerns on this issue. Firstly, the board would like to thank Alberto and Andrea for their hard work to increase participation in GNOME by making this mirror happen. We all think it's important to improve our outreach to newcomers and welcome work like this to make contributions easier to a greater group of people. Alberto, please also pass on our thanks to the folks at GitHub who took the time and helped make this happen! However, the majority of the board requested that the word official be removed as we think it could be confusing as to whether GNOME is recommending GitHub. Alberto has already complied with this request. (You can read more detail about this in the minutes.) The board would like to explore making this effort with other services (like Gitorious). If there is someone who would like to put in the work to create the appropriate hooks in the repository, please contact us. karen ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Il 13/09/2013 16:48, Karen Sandler ha scritto: On Thu, August 15, 2013 5:03 am, Alberto Ruiz wrote: I've been working with the GitHub guys and Andrea Veri on setting up a mirror for all GNOME repos in GitHub. As you can see in the minutes published today, the board discussed the thread about GitHub and the various concerns on this issue. Firstly, the board would like to thank Alberto and Andrea for their hard work to increase participation in GNOME by making this mirror happen. We all think it's important to improve our outreach to newcomers and welcome work like this to make contributions easier to a greater group of people. Alberto, please also pass on our thanks to the folks at GitHub who took the time and helped make this happen! However, the majority of the board requested that the word official be removed as we think it could be confusing as to whether GNOME is recommending GitHub. Alberto has already complied with this request. (You can read more detail about this in the minutes.) The board would like to explore making this effort with other services (like Gitorious). If there is someone who would like to put in the work to create the appropriate hooks in the repository, please contact us. karen Great news! Thanks for being open about this, and taking care of discussing the issue. Cheers, - -- Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : mat...@member.fsf.org - -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/E d--(-) s+: a- C+++ UL+++ P+ L$ E+ W+++ N+ o? w--- O M- V- PS++ PE- Y+++ PGP+++ t++ 5 X- R+ !tv b+++ DI++ D++ G++ e++ h+ r++ y+ - --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSM488AAoJEIV2zBrZfULfgpkQAIoQDK5EN3T9PmNcx0NNl0ET 1gB7UqAe56mcKE0Fc46cUwEMBGVQ75jkk59yv1d00Se1nQHOJ0jd0yUX2aRutYm6 /Sdltb7Un0EQndq2evKAsMKXeJQOtS4GgyU3uIlr5h9myMBqXhBerhdzmv+ab+VU HfvjV+Z7VflFoW5huGZANtvYkN8AF/GHtKGtWC7J+OKfAelwPpxHZw7kWQP3S/ki tA9T3NSuzdytrp4XSrv09V7jyqMrqWMCFkezIXwmpaaihlXx1ceGJ1NXroNbsJ9A JGDVKMfB7UTDDm+gSi+UpIKeiJsOwDjzmZ73cmCAw+IMCUK1aQAMtY5GjN8uWr2b b7WloGFWAao8/Vxbswb5tLdIuZvNdrwF1EiLn48hY6cJ+8fLYtT4jd3InSnHND63 TLj7It957Z04nDUkaGntBOBoYEaKDwHzrqOP6G40Kz9bC0Z8Xpmo92E4YR6kGmqs h5TRd7yWWZTNl8gvGiiWFNBHFDZYgqK0xw128Fa46kx5Hq5hHkn9iMq31DDR0X2q oUZGZDAWhPg5dEvNiPm87KB6ge1zH+AEErMoHJLKifzKRdLNpIlKtAhiMsL/okNM MYVCdWTtlCs0wrlVFu/mZLkFdgYIXuYDRKT+z9OHKDJd8n3Rkg+2eBSSYxZKdstW NCrGT8YFFdk4JpH8Wi9G =jRCf -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
I'm not a module maintainer, just a community member trying to make sure you don't make your relation to GitHub tighter than it already is. GitHub probably has cool features and is probably the best of its kind (which helps free software), but on the other hand it is proprietary and centralized. I don't believe anyone has the right or the ability to decide what's more important in the name of all the contributors to GNOME or the whole community of users, which is why I suggest a switch: Let maintainers turn off the mirroring. Let them decide how they fight centralization. After all, they're the ones who do the actual work, not the few people who make decisions. Straight people can fight for gay people's rights. And I can fight for maintainers' rights. Even if a country has only one religion, it can choose to respect other religions if they show up in the future. In the same way, I suggest to make the switch even if no current maintainer asks for one (although I've seen messages from maintainers here). On ו', 2013-08-16 at 10:23 -0400, Hubert Figuière wrote: On 16/08/13 05:22 AM, fr33domlover wrote: Judging by replies here, I'm afraid there's no enough interest. All the names I recognized here support the GitHub mirrors, while the voices against them are people whose name I never saw, or are maintainers of less popular modules. Please, tell us since you haven't answered the question I asked before. Which Gnome modules do you maintain? Since you were opposed to your code being put on Github that would give some context. Hub ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
Hi. On 25.08.2013 10:54, fr33domlover wrote: which is why I suggest a switch: Let maintainers turn off the mirroring. I think it is safe to assume that your suggestion was heard. You are free to implement that. And in case it wasn't clear: You are very welcome to implement the relevant logic to push to more destinations to fight centralization. I also think that this approach will be more successful than reiterating the suggestion you make. Cheers, Tobi signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:54 AM, fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.org wrote: I'm not a module maintainer, just a community member trying to make sure you don't make your relation to GitHub tighter than it already is. ... I don't believe anyone has the right or the ability to decide what's more important in the name of all the contributors to GNOME or the whole community of users, which is why I suggest a switch: Let maintainers turn off the mirroring. Let them decide how they fight centralization. After all, they're the ones who do the actual work, not the few people who make decisions. Straight people can fight for gay people's rights. And I can fight for maintainers' rights. Exactly how many maintainers have shown interest in this? I think most of us are way too busy trying our best to make Free Software as awesome as we possibly can that we can't be bothered by such non-issues. As maintainer of some of the GNOME modules, I'm asking you to stop this please. I know you mean well and If you really want to help, I have like a gazillion things on my TODO list that most people on this list will agree are essential to world domination of GNOME (and therefore Free Software). Contact me privately and I can provide you with a list. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On Sun, 2013-08-25 at 17:45 +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: Exactly how many maintainers have shown interest in this? fr33domlover, your passion for software freedom is admirable, but even RMS was all in favor of GitHub until he found out that they compress their JavaScript. (Frankly I don't think a fight against nonfree JavaScript is a reasonable one for us to pick.) I really don't see this taking off. Cheers, Michael signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On א', 2013-08-25 at 11:59 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Sun, 2013-08-25 at 17:45 +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: Exactly how many maintainers have shown interest in this? fr33domlover, your passion for software freedom is admirable, Thanks. I hope it inspires someone here and there. but even RMS was all in favor of GitHub until he found out that they compress their JavaScript. Yes, because he considered the technical definition of free software and a SaaS, ignoring the issue of centralization. Anyway I'm glad he cleared the software freedom points regarding GitHub. (Frankly I don't think a fight against nonfree JavaScript is a reasonable one for us to pick.) I really don't see this taking off. No problems. I'm done expressing thoughts on this. It's not my decision to make (I'm not even a maintainer). I just wanted to express my opinion, and I'm thankful I was able to do it in a constructive discussion. Cheers, Michael Good luck with the new mirrors, I hope they help spread free software. fr33domlover ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
:כתב Olav Vitters, 2013-08-18 13:05 בתאריך On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:20:31PM +0300, fr33domlover wrote: Therefore, by turning off mirroring for a module, you don't block anything or stop anything - you just avoid pointing to a proprietary service, which is legitimate in my opinion. git.gnome.org is also available on Google. It indexes the entire website, which has the entire code. It is also available on various other search engines. I find it rather strange that there is such a focus on something which will spread the idea of free software. Gitorious existence doesn't make it automatically viable btw. There's always the Act Globally VS Act Locally debate. Clearly you can't fix everything at once (even GNU was being written using proprietary UNIX when there was no choice), so why not start locally? Fix the world one step at a time. Right now, we have several proprietary-software centralized services, usually of high quality. And we have decentralized free ones, but they're usually less popular (unfortunately, our economy is based on greed, not good will, but that's off-topic). If GNOME makes the GitHub mirrors a standard feature it supports, it will make people get used to it and depend on it, just like people are used to Windows. Since GitHub is centralized, there's no way for people to change the rules or run their clone. It's also proprietary, so they can't use the code and need to write alternatives from scratch. Why is adding an onoff switch such an issue? GNOME is not a product, not a service, not a company (IIRC). Centralization can be a big problem (see MediaGoblin promotion video / FSF website main page). Adding a switch would avoid contributors from being discouraged by this kind of official GNOME policy, and being worried about these centralization issues. I believe this is called coupling in SE. Maybe the lowest level of coupling, since it's just a mirror used by GitHub users, but still too much IMHO (considering the centralization issue). ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Le 2013-08-19 17:41, Olav Vitters a écrit : He's totally free to go personal with someone via private email. It is offtopic for this list, totally inappropriate and socially unacceptable. Suggest to read the descriptions for these mailing lists. Note that mailman is free software and anyone is also free to host their own mailing list. Le 2013-08-19 18:20, Andre Klapper a écrit : On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 17:08 +0200, Mathieu Stumpf wrote: Seriously, having harsh personal discourses is a pity, but escalading to bare censorship is a shame. If you misbehave in another person's place that person might kick you out. It's called domestic authority. Newspapers are not forced to publish every posting they receive from their readers either. You can misbehave wherever else you want, especially in your own place/blog/website/whatever where nobody might consider it misbehaving but instead totally acceptable, because that place would be fine. Please first understand what censorship means before using such strong words and insulting people who do suffer under censorship of governments. You may not agree with how I understand it, it doesn't mean my understanding lake reflection and is insulting to those suffering from its strongest forms. Little brooks make big rivers: you can hardly blame a governement to use governemental censorship when you don't refrain yourself from using your priviliged position to clean a canal from misbehaviouring interventions. To my mind, banning someone as soon as he makes his first (AFAIK) pity intervention is an overreaction. -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
2013/8/17 Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org It's true that most commercial software is proprietary, and we're against it -- but not directly because it's commercial. Meanwhile, some commercial programs are free, and we are grateful for their development. Its sad that there is a huge number out there who think Free Software means $0 software. Regards, Balasankar C http://balasankarc.in ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Richard Stallman wrote on 17/08/2013 1:10: I don't think it'll make much of a difference as neither technical nor philosophical arguments are often part of, not what gets discussed at GNOME but, what gets decided. To make sure that it's noted I do agree with Richard on this: But I don't think that applies to most of what GitHub or Savannah does. Those are communication activities. You couldn't do them by calling a library in your own computer. So it is ok to use services for that (but pay attention to the privacy issues). However, it would be nice if we could do it in a peer-to-peer fashion. I also wonder what Github offers that can't be done peer to peer. Note that I lack experience in the magic of quantum-marketing iCloud stuff. Kind regards, Philip ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 19:10 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. To Richard: I would like a clarification in this respect. If I use a non-free web service (for instance, a web service for which the source code to install it and run it locally is not available), I think it is a mistake to use the term non-free web service with that definition, because that question is not what makes a web service ethical or unethical. If the server does a job you could do in your own computer, even in principle, then it's SaaSS and it's bad. Otherwise, the issues that make the service ethical or unethical are other issues. is it really different from linking to a proprietary library from my GPL program? Using a service run by someone else is like asking him to do a job for you. If he uses nonfree software to do the job, that's his mistake and his loss. We are sorry for him, but we don't need to boycott him because of that. Thus, for instance, we don't need to refuse to take the subway because the subway system has computers with Windows, or refuse to make a phone call because the phone exchange uses runs proprietary software, or refuse to make a connection across the Internet because it might pass through some routers that run nonfree software, or refuse to order t-shirts because the shirt company might use Windows to make shirts. In these cases, we're not using that software -- the companies are using it. If it's proprietary, the companies are the ones whose freedom is taken away. When you use someone else's service, you never have control over any software he uses to do your job. If it's free software, he has control. If it's proprietary, he doesn't have control (which is an injustice towards him). But either way, you don't have control over it. That's the nature of a service -- but is it bad? In some cases, it is bad. There are certain jobs that you shouldn't entrust to someone else's service, because you should have control over them. Namely, these are the jobs you could do in your own computer. Using a service for those jobs is SaaSS. If a given service is equivalent to calling a library in your computer, then it is SaaSS, so it is bad. Even if the server runs only released free software, SaaSS is still bad. In order to have control of this computing, you need to do it by calling a free library in your computer. That's the way it should be done. But I don't think that applies to most of what GitHub or Savannah does. Those are communication activities. You couldn't do them by calling a library in your own computer. So it is ok to use services for that (but pay attention to the privacy issues). However, it would be nice if we could do it in a peer-to-peer fashion. Hi, I'm a newer GNOME foundation list member, and I'm usually pretty quiet here, but I read all the mail, and I wanted to chime in with some thoughts if that's okay... I've really enjoyed reading this GitHub thread. In these threads, I sometimes see people who are overly harsh or mean to Dr. Stallman, probably because he takes a more strict approach to things Free Software. To those people, I would ask them to please lighten up, and here's why: In this example, I think Dr. Stallman has been very reasonable about the issue, and has taken a lot of effort to write down and explain things clearly. Whether you agree with him or not, you have to have a great amount of respect for someone who thinks about the issue thoroughly and works hard to convey his thoughts well. I don't have a Yeelong laptop, but I like understanding and learning about the issues, and I think it's important for the world. Hopefully Free Software remains one of GNOME's highest priorities. In these cases, we're not using that software -- the companies are using it. If it's proprietary, the companies are the ones whose freedom is taken away. I found it interesting to think about it this way! We always think about companies versus individuals, but I think most companies need to be reminded that their Freedom matters too! Thanks for reminding me. Anyways, less talking, more hacking! Cheers, James signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Sun, 2013-08-18 at 13:14 -0400, Super Bisquit wrote: Since when did you become a Dr without having an actual doctorate- honorary ones don't mean shit? Other Doctors that may or may not be real Doctor's include: Dr. Dre, Doctor Who, and Dr. Seuss... Personally I think Dr. Stallman qualifies at least as much or more than a real Doctor. Also, quit trolling and go away. This is the foundation list. Thanks :) James On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote: [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. Its sad that there is a huge number out there who think Free Software means $0 software. I often say free/libre software to help clear this up. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Le 2013-08-18 23:13, Olav Vitters a écrit : On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 01:14:47PM -0400, Super Bisquit wrote: Since when did you become a Dr without having an actual doctorate- honorary ones don't mean shit? Since when is such behaviour socially acceptable? Anyway, you're banned from both lists, bye. Seriously, having harsh personal discourses is a pity, but escalading to bare censorship is a shame. Hiding symptom don't help to resolve problems. Freedom come with the ability to make mistakes, including saying non-constructive things. -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 05:08:06PM +0200, Mathieu Stumpf wrote: Le 2013-08-18 23:13, Olav Vitters a écrit : On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 01:14:47PM -0400, Super Bisquit wrote: Since when did you become a Dr without having an actual doctorate- honorary ones don't mean shit? Since when is such behaviour socially acceptable? Anyway, you're banned from both lists, bye. Seriously, having harsh personal discourses is a pity, but escalading to bare censorship is a shame. Hiding symptom don't help to resolve problems. Freedom come with the ability to make mistakes, including saying non-constructive things. He's totally free to go personal with someone via private email. It is offtopic for this list, totally inappropriate and socially unacceptable. Suggest to read the descriptions for these mailing lists. Note that mailman is free software and anyone is also free to host their own mailing list. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:00:38AM +0200, Matteo Settenvini wrote: If there's interest, we could draft a paragraph or two, so that a bit of uniformity in communicating our ideals takes the form of a wider protest. I recommend not doing this. The code is published under the GPL. If you don't want it used in ways that goes against whatever you want, change the license. If you think free software is really important, advocate that. If you have some pet peeve against Github, GNOME infrastructure is not meant for advocacy against something. Promote free software and explain why it is good all your want. All the other stuff: it is like preaching to the choir plus pretty double standard to complain about something that a) makes free software more available to people b) totally allowed by the license and I do mean the thought behind the license, not just the legal wording. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 04:50:14PM +0200, Matteo Settenvini wrote: In the end, I might just do so, if everyone turns out to be uninterested in the fundamental values of free software. For once, I might start by canceling my monthly donations. And with me, others — fewer than you would gain by aggressive marketing, sure, but still. I always advocate for GNOME. I'd hate starting to advocate against it. Such threats are really not appropriate (aside from questionable form of communication, I have received loads of threats over the years). -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:20:31PM +0300, fr33domlover wrote: Therefore, by turning off mirroring for a module, you don't block anything or stop anything - you just avoid pointing to a proprietary service, which is legitimate in my opinion. git.gnome.org is also available on Google. It indexes the entire website, which has the entire code. It is also available on various other search engines. I find it rather strange that there is such a focus on something which will spread the idea of free software. Gitorious existence doesn't make it automatically viable btw. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Since when did you become a Dr without having an actual doctorate- honorary ones don't mean shit? On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote: [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. Its sad that there is a huge number out there who think Free Software means $0 software. I often say free/libre software to help clear this up. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. Since when did you become a Dr without having an actual doctorate- honorary ones don't mean shit? A doctorate honoris causa is a real doctorate. To get them required many years of hard work on the GNU system, which you as a GNOME developer also contribute to. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Super Bisquit superbisq...@gmail.com wrote: Since when did you become a Dr without having an actual doctorate- honorary ones don't mean shit? Derogatory personal comments have no place on this list. Please refrain from making posts like this again. Our moderators have been notified about this, and will act if you send mails like this again. Let's keep it civil; we're all on the same side here. Allan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 01:14:47PM -0400, Super Bisquit wrote: Since when did you become a Dr without having an actual doctorate- honorary ones don't mean shit? Since when is such behaviour socially acceptable? Anyway, you're banned from both lists, bye. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. I found it interesting to think about it this way! We always think about companies versus individuals, but I think most companies need to be reminded that their Freedom matters too! Thanks for reminding me. Free software is never a matter of companies vs individuals. We're not against commercial software and never were. We're against proprietary software. It's true that most commercial software is proprietary, and we're against it -- but not directly because it's commercial. Meanwhile, some commercial programs are free, and we are grateful for their development. When you see someone contrasting free software with commercial software, it is very important to set the confusion straight. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Il giorno ven, 16/08/2013 alle 19.10 -0400, Richard Stallman ha scritto: [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. To Richard: I would like a clarification in this respect. If I use a non-free web service (for instance, a web service for which the source code to install it and run it locally is not available), I think it is a mistake to use the term non-free web service with that definition, because that question is not what makes a web service ethical or unethical. If the server does a job you could do in your own computer, even in principle, then it's SaaSS and it's bad. Otherwise, the issues that make the service ethical or unethical are other issues. is it really different from linking to a proprietary library from my GPL program? Using a service run by someone else is like asking him to do a job for you. If he uses nonfree software to do the job, that's his mistake and his loss. We are sorry for him, but we don't need to boycott him because of that. Thus, for instance, we don't need to refuse to take the subway because the subway system has computers with Windows, or refuse to make a phone call because the phone exchange uses runs proprietary software, or refuse to make a connection across the Internet because it might pass through some routers that run nonfree software, or refuse to order t-shirts because the shirt company might use Windows to make shirts. In these cases, we're not using that software -- the companies are using it. If it's proprietary, the companies are the ones whose freedom is taken away. When you use someone else's service, you never have control over any software he uses to do your job. If it's free software, he has control. If it's proprietary, he doesn't have control (which is an injustice towards him). But either way, you don't have control over it. That's the nature of a service -- but is it bad? In some cases, it is bad. There are certain jobs that you shouldn't entrust to someone else's service, because you should have control over them. Namely, these are the jobs you could do in your own computer. Using a service for those jobs is SaaSS. If a given service is equivalent to calling a library in your computer, then it is SaaSS, so it is bad. Even if the server runs only released free software, SaaSS is still bad. In order to have control of this computing, you need to do it by calling a free library in your computer. That's the way it should be done. But I don't think that applies to most of what GitHub or Savannah does. Those are communication activities. You couldn't do them by calling a library in your own computer. So it is ok to use services for that (but pay attention to the privacy issues). However, it would be nice if we could do it in a peer-to-peer fashion. Thank you for your kind and thorough answer. It was very helpful to me to understand the issue better. Wishing you a wonderful weekend, -- Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : mat...@member.fsf.org -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/E d--(-) s+: a- C+++ UL+++ P+ L$ E+ W+++ N+ o? w--- O M- V- PS++ PE- Y+++ PGP+++ t++ 5 X- R+ !tv b+++ DI++ D++ G++ e++ h+ r++ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : mat...@member.fsf.org -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/E d--(-) s+: a- C+++ UL+++ P+ L$ E+ W+++ N+ o? w--- O M- V- PS++ PE- Y+++ PGP+++ t++ 5 X- R+ !tv b+++ DI++ D++ G++ e++ h+ r++ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. Its sad that there is a huge number out there who think Free Software means $0 software. I often say free/libre software to help clear this up. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On ו', 2013-08-16 at 04:13 -0300, Bastien Nocera wrote: On 15 Aug 2013, at 22:20, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote: [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. Is it advisable to use nonfree GitHub as a secondary mirror for GNOME's free software? When you say that GitHub is nonfree, what do you mean by that? We do not have any definition for calling a service free or nonfree. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html. It's as much nonfree as Skype which you mention in your signature: Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. In Skype's case, both the service and the software are nonfree. Either change your sig or accept that you do have a definition after all ;) I believe the mentioned article answers your question: GitHub is essentially SaaS. A proprietary one. Using it is more-or-less like using Git (with some extras) but through proprietary software. Your git workflow becomes dependent on GitHub's features and infrastructure, hence you're denied your freedom (e.g. GitHub could send account details to a 3rd party, etc. just like many other services, or vendor-lock you from easily migrating your workflow to other git hosting services). ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
Il giorno gio, 15/08/2013 alle 12.07 +0200, Alexandre Franke ha scritto: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote: I really don't care much about my code being mirrored anywhere. At least gitorious would be ethically acceptable, so it wouldn't bother me, but I won't invest time in this. I see the value of this as a backup though, so if others want to work on this I say that's a good thing. Anyway this is really not what was the most important point to me in my previous email and you didn't answer the question I really cared about, so I'm asking again: is there a way for maintainers to opt out of the github mirroring? Hello, I share the concerns already expressed that this move might be seen as an implicit support of a proprietary service (one for which the source code of the server-side website infrastructure is not available) by the GNOME project, part of the free software movement. One of the great things about GNOME has usually been being not only open source -- good on technical grounds --, but also great in fighting for users' freedoms. Mirroring on github instead of gitorious is a signal in the wrong direction, as it helps in attracting more users to github (therefore directly helping a proprietary platform in terms of popularity), annoys some maintainers and contributors as can be seen in this discussion, and allows github to advertise the mirror of such a big project as GNOME in their press releases (it *will* happen, I'm fairly sure, as PR is important). Else, why were they eager to help with the mirroring, spending time and resources on it, if there was little or no return in investment? And that's fine on their part: they're just doing their job. The problem is on this side. Since PR is the important point for them, and the mirroring afaik was done without the explicit consent of maintainers, or a democratic voting process taking place on a relevant mailing list such as d-d-l, I suggest a passive-resistance stance (note that I am not a maintainer myself). github uses a file called README.md to display the main project information. A section against github can be put at the top of them by a module maintainer, explaining why it should not be used as it is proprietary, and suggesting users to move away from it. The module maintainer herself could then create a mirror on e.g. gitorious, and put the link in the same README.md file, inviting users to use that and to close their github account if they want to respect users' freedoms. Since this gives bad publicity to github, and encourages users to leave their service in favor of a competing one, I believe the github team will sooner or later get fed up and remove the modules themselves. Or even if they don't, we still get the effect of discouraging users in using their infrastructure, which is the point. This requires only actions from each interested module maintainer, it doesn't need approval or work by the sysadmin team (as they didn't ask for the module maintainers' approval). If there's interest, we could draft a paragraph or two, so that a bit of uniformity in communicating our ideals takes the form of a wider protest. Regards, -- Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : mat...@member.fsf.org -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/E d--(-) s+: a- C+++ UL+++ P+ L$ E+ W+++ N+ o? w--- O M- V- PS++ PE- Y+++ PGP+++ t++ 5 X- R+ !tv b+++ DI++ D++ G++ e++ h+ r++ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : mat...@member.fsf.org -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/E d--(-) s+: a- C+++ UL+++ P+ L$ E+ W+++ N+ o? w--- O M- V- PS++ PE- Y+++ PGP+++ t++ 5 X- R+ !tv b+++ DI++ D++ G++ e++ h+ r++ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
This is a great idea, but only if enough maintainers cooperate with it. Otherwise, the Gnome officially using GitHub message is stronger than a few small modules having your README.md file, while all other modules have READMEs of the common kind. Judging by replies here, I'm afraid there's no enough interest. All the names I recognized here support the GitHub mirrors, while the voices against them are people whose name I never saw, or are maintainers of less popular modules. Without major modules participating, I'm not sure it will work. We can wait longer and see comments from more people. Right now I think a per-module switch to disable mirroring sounds like better protest (maybe unless I see maintainers of major modules disagree with the GitHub mirroring). On ו', 2013-08-16 at 10:00 +0200, Matteo Settenvini wrote: Il giorno gio, 15/08/2013 alle 12.07 +0200, Alexandre Franke ha scritto: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote: I really don't care much about my code being mirrored anywhere. At least gitorious would be ethically acceptable, so it wouldn't bother me, but I won't invest time in this. I see the value of this as a backup though, so if others want to work on this I say that's a good thing. Anyway this is really not what was the most important point to me in my previous email and you didn't answer the question I really cared about, so I'm asking again: is there a way for maintainers to opt out of the github mirroring? Hello, I share the concerns already expressed that this move might be seen as an implicit support of a proprietary service (one for which the source code of the server-side website infrastructure is not available) by the GNOME project, part of the free software movement. One of the great things about GNOME has usually been being not only open source -- good on technical grounds --, but also great in fighting for users' freedoms. Mirroring on github instead of gitorious is a signal in the wrong direction, as it helps in attracting more users to github (therefore directly helping a proprietary platform in terms of popularity), annoys some maintainers and contributors as can be seen in this discussion, and allows github to advertise the mirror of such a big project as GNOME in their press releases (it *will* happen, I'm fairly sure, as PR is important). Else, why were they eager to help with the mirroring, spending time and resources on it, if there was little or no return in investment? And that's fine on their part: they're just doing their job. The problem is on this side. Since PR is the important point for them, and the mirroring afaik was done without the explicit consent of maintainers, or a democratic voting process taking place on a relevant mailing list such as d-d-l, I suggest a passive-resistance stance (note that I am not a maintainer myself). github uses a file called README.md to display the main project information. A section against github can be put at the top of them by a module maintainer, explaining why it should not be used as it is proprietary, and suggesting users to move away from it. The module maintainer herself could then create a mirror on e.g. gitorious, and put the link in the same README.md file, inviting users to use that and to close their github account if they want to respect users' freedoms. Since this gives bad publicity to github, and encourages users to leave their service in favor of a competing one, I believe the github team will sooner or later get fed up and remove the modules themselves. Or even if they don't, we still get the effect of discouraging users in using their infrastructure, which is the point. This requires only actions from each interested module maintainer, it doesn't need approval or work by the sysadmin team (as they didn't ask for the module maintainers' approval). If there's interest, we could draft a paragraph or two, so that a bit of uniformity in communicating our ideals takes the form of a wider protest. Regards, -- Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : mat...@member.fsf.org -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/E d--(-) s+: a- C+++ UL+++ P+ L$ E+ W+++ N+ o? w--- O M- V- PS++ PE- Y+++ PGP+++ t++ 5 X- R+ !tv b+++ DI++ D++ G++ e++ h+ r++ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
Il giorno ven, 16/08/2013 alle 12.22 +0300, fr33domlover ha scritto: This is a great idea, but only if enough maintainers cooperate with it. Otherwise, the Gnome officially using GitHub message is stronger than a few small modules having your README.md file, while all other modules have READMEs of the common kind. Judging by replies here, I'm afraid there's no enough interest. All the names I recognized here support the GitHub mirrors, while the voices against them are people whose name I never saw, or are maintainers of less popular modules. Without major modules participating, I'm not sure it will work. We can wait longer and see comments from more people. Right now I think a per-module switch to disable mirroring sounds like better protest (maybe unless I see maintainers of major modules disagree with the GitHub mirroring). I understand your position, but if you are really concerned about freedom and are a module maintainer, you are willing to take action even if it is only for your module. After all, each developer is free to do what they see fit with the code they maintain. Nobody can stop a mirror being taken (there's nothing in the license of the software preventing it), and forcing a developer to forfeit a github mirror is going against freedom 2 (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). However, taking action on the code you have the copyright of, and protesting about what is not in line with your ideals, sounds a fine compromise. It doesn't block other people doing what they want -- be it running Firefox with Adobe Flash, using DRM'd software, having a github account, or installing Mac OS X/Windows --, but makes them aware of what freedoms they give up in the process. Then, it's up to the final user to make their decision; which is definitively what free software is really about. Cheers, -- Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : mat...@member.fsf.org -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/E d--(-) s+: a- C+++ UL+++ P+ L$ E+ W+++ N+ o? w--- O M- V- PS++ PE- Y+++ PGP+++ t++ 5 X- R+ !tv b+++ DI++ D++ G++ e++ h+ r++ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On ו', 2013-08-16 at 12:00 +0200, Matteo Settenvini wrote: Il giorno ven, 16/08/2013 alle 12.22 +0300, fr33domlover ha scritto: This is a great idea, but only if enough maintainers cooperate with it. Otherwise, the Gnome officially using GitHub message is stronger than a few small modules having your README.md file, while all other modules have READMEs of the common kind. Judging by replies here, I'm afraid there's no enough interest. All the names I recognized here support the GitHub mirrors, while the voices against them are people whose name I never saw, or are maintainers of less popular modules. Without major modules participating, I'm not sure it will work. We can wait longer and see comments from more people. Right now I think a per-module switch to disable mirroring sounds like better protest (maybe unless I see maintainers of major modules disagree with the GitHub mirroring). I understand your position, but if you are really concerned about freedom and are a module maintainer, you are willing to take action even if it is only for your module. Of course, but I believe not having the GitHub mirror at all may be better, since it's a bit harder to ignore than a readme file. After all, each developer is free to do what they see fit with the code they maintain. Nobody can stop a mirror being taken (there's nothing in the license of the software preventing it), and forcing a developer to forfeit a github mirror is going against freedom 2 (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). True, I don't suggest to prevent the mirrors: Just not automate. Anyone can create a mirror manually, and it's their freedom to do so. But I don't think maintainers should have their modules automatically synced to GitHub without allowing them to switch it off. However, taking action on the code you have the copyright of, and protesting about what is not in line with your ideals, sounds a fine compromise. It doesn't block other people doing what they want -- be it running Firefox with Adobe Flash, using DRM'd software, having a github account, or installing Mac OS X/Windows --, but makes them aware of what freedoms they give up in the process. Then, it's up to the final user to make their decision; which is definitively what free software is really about. Sure, they're all still free to use all these things, including GitHub. But that doesn't mean a maintainer should have their module officially mirrored in GitHub, and it doesn't matter how many people use GitHub. A maintainer can switch on the mirroring and protest through the README, but I think they should have the right to turn off mirroring for their module. Let the people decide how they prefer to protest. Cheers, ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On 16 August 2013 07:48, fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.org wrote: True, I don't suggest to prevent the mirrors: Just not automate. Anyone can create a mirror manually, and it's their freedom to do so. But I don't think maintainers should have their modules automatically synced to GitHub without allowing them to switch it off. May I suggest that you read the GPL[1] again? Term #1 of GPLv2 says, You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium. A maintainer of a GPL v2+ module has absolutely no right to stop anyone making a public exact copy of the software (automatic or otherwise). The license does not allow him to discriminate against companies that he doesn't like. See also #5 and #6 of the Open Source Definition. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html [2] http://opensource.org/osd Jeremy ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
As I've said before, GNOME uses proprietary services for collaboration and outreach. We have active presences on the proprietary communication services Google+, Facebook, and Twitter. We displayed a large Twitter wall at GUADEC showing tweets tagged with the hashtag #guadec. GitHub is just another one of these services we use for community outreach, and I fail to see how it's any different than any of the others. There's possibly a discussion to have about whether GNOME should use proprietary services for outreach, but GitHub isn't really anything new here. In my opinion, if you feel strongly about the use of proprietary services for outreach, perhaps GNOME isn't the greatest fit for you. On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Matteo Settenvini matteo...@member.fsf.org wrote: Il giorno gio, 15/08/2013 alle 12.07 +0200, Alexandre Franke ha scritto: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote: I really don't care much about my code being mirrored anywhere. At least gitorious would be ethically acceptable, so it wouldn't bother me, but I won't invest time in this. I see the value of this as a backup though, so if others want to work on this I say that's a good thing. Anyway this is really not what was the most important point to me in my previous email and you didn't answer the question I really cared about, so I'm asking again: is there a way for maintainers to opt out of the github mirroring? Hello, I share the concerns already expressed that this move might be seen as an implicit support of a proprietary service (one for which the source code of the server-side website infrastructure is not available) by the GNOME project, part of the free software movement. One of the great things about GNOME has usually been being not only open source -- good on technical grounds --, but also great in fighting for users' freedoms. Mirroring on github instead of gitorious is a signal in the wrong direction, as it helps in attracting more users to github (therefore directly helping a proprietary platform in terms of popularity), annoys some maintainers and contributors as can be seen in this discussion, and allows github to advertise the mirror of such a big project as GNOME in their press releases (it *will* happen, I'm fairly sure, as PR is important). Else, why were they eager to help with the mirroring, spending time and resources on it, if there was little or no return in investment? And that's fine on their part: they're just doing their job. The problem is on this side. Since PR is the important point for them, and the mirroring afaik was done without the explicit consent of maintainers, or a democratic voting process taking place on a relevant mailing list such as d-d-l, I suggest a passive-resistance stance (note that I am not a maintainer myself). github uses a file called README.md to display the main project information. A section against github can be put at the top of them by a module maintainer, explaining why it should not be used as it is proprietary, and suggesting users to move away from it. The module maintainer herself could then create a mirror on e.g. gitorious, and put the link in the same README.md file, inviting users to use that and to close their github account if they want to respect users' freedoms. Since this gives bad publicity to github, and encourages users to leave their service in favor of a competing one, I believe the github team will sooner or later get fed up and remove the modules themselves. Or even if they don't, we still get the effect of discouraging users in using their infrastructure, which is the point. This requires only actions from each interested module maintainer, it doesn't need approval or work by the sysadmin team (as they didn't ask for the module maintainers' approval). If there's interest, we could draft a paragraph or two, so that a bit of uniformity in communicating our ideals takes the form of a wider protest. Regards, -- Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : mat...@member.fsf.org -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/E d--(-) s+: a- C+++ UL+++ P+ L$ E+ W+++ N+ o? w--- O M- V- PS++ PE- Y+++ PGP+++ t++ 5 X- R+ !tv b+++ DI++ D++ G++ e++ h+ r++ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : mat...@member.fsf.org -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/E d--(-) s+: a- C+++ UL+++ P+ L$ E+ W+++ N+ o? w--- O M- V- PS++ PE- Y+++ PGP+++ t++ 5 X- R+ !tv b+++ DI++ D++ G++ e++ h+ r++ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Jasper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 21:20 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. Is it advisable to use nonfree GitHub as a secondary mirror for GNOME's free software? When you say that GitHub is nonfree, what do you mean by that? We do not have any definition for calling a service free or nonfree. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html. Hi Richard, GitHub provides a number of services around the Git repositories it provides. Git, of course, is free software, and you can interact with your repository as with any other Git repository. The extra services GitHub provides require quite a bit of server-side software, much of which is not released as free software. That, however, is a network service, not software running on your computer. The normal way of interacting with the extra services is using the web site, and the web site does require non-free JavaScript to work. But GitHub does provide an HTTP-based API that allows you to write entirely free software yourself to interact with these services. GitHub is clearly not as aligned with our mission as something like Gitorious, which uses 100% free software. But GitHub does not require you to run non-free software on your own computer for anything, as far as I can tell. -- Shaun ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On 16/08/13 05:22 AM, fr33domlover wrote: Judging by replies here, I'm afraid there's no enough interest. All the names I recognized here support the GitHub mirrors, while the voices against them are people whose name I never saw, or are maintainers of less popular modules. Please, tell us since you haven't answered the question I asked before. Which Gnome modules do you maintain? Since you were opposed to your code being put on Github that would give some context. Hub ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
Il giorno ven, 16/08/2013 alle 10.17 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre ha scritto: As I've said before, GNOME uses proprietary services for collaboration and outreach. We have active presences on the proprietary communication services Google+, Facebook, and Twitter. We displayed a large Twitter wall at GUADEC showing tweets tagged with the hashtag #guadec. GitHub is just another one of these services we use for community outreach, and I fail to see how it's any different than any of the others. You are of course right. The matter should be probably discussed, as those services have the same problems of github, and free alternatives do exist. There's possibly a discussion to have about whether GNOME should use proprietary services for outreach, but GitHub isn't really anything new here. In my opinion, if you feel strongly about the use of proprietary services for outreach, perhaps GNOME isn't the greatest fit for you. Excuse me, but I happen to like GNOME, to like how it's designed, build, and the developer community it has. I love GNOME devs, and I think they are some of the best guys in FLOSS. I like the attention to details, the project license, and the respect of the users freedom that comes with it. Last time I checked, it is still part of the GNU Project! It was one of the main reasons I got away from KDE years ago, in favor of GNOME. Why shouldn't I try to change the (poor) direction things are taking to preserve a piece of software, freedom and above all community I have an emotional attachment to? Or is it already the situation so desperate that GNOME is not the greatest fit for me, and I should look elsewhere (don't bother, go away)? In the end, I might just do so, if everyone turns out to be uninterested in the fundamental values of free software. For once, I might start by canceling my monthly donations. And with me, others — fewer than you would gain by aggressive marketing, sure, but still. I always advocate for GNOME. I'd hate starting to advocate against it. You can indeed become fairly popular ignoring fundamental users' freedoms (look at Ubuntu). But what are you willing to give up just to be popular? Many a showgirl would give answers on that topic that would make a seasoned sailor blush... I hope GNOME is not selling out. In the end, you just find yourself more and more tied to those proprietary services you tried to escape in the first place by creating a system such as GNOME. If you have a Facebook account, for instance, think how willing you are to close it down, even now after seeing the Snowden datagate emerging. Besides, while github is not free, gitorious and others are. Diaspora is still experimental and not on-par with things such as Google+ or Facebook, but gitorious is a good alternative. So even on a technical level, this choice reeks. Also because by working with e.g. the gitorious team, one could have also found more bugs / asked for some features which would then be fixed in an open-source product, benefiting the community at large. So there's an indirect contribution too to the well-being of everyone. I'm not implying a slippery-slope argument here: I don't think GNOME will become closed source in the near future, or anything like that. But there have been constant signs of going adrift in latest years, and not always users have been heard out / notified. A community needs to be built, or it will dissolve. While I appreciate the development effort went into GNOME in the 3.x cycle, I also believe that it has not gotten better at all in community-building, hemorrhaging users to other DEs. And it won't be Facebook, Google+ or github to solve the fundamental problem: poor communication and unilateral decisions (especially from the designers, sorry guys) instead of building consensus or at least discussing why their ideas are sounder than the others'. Anyway, interoperability from GNOME's side with proprietary systems is good. It allows users, if informed correctly, even to migrate and transition to open systems. But relying on proprietary systems still sends the wrong message, imho. It's like we cannot come up with something working ourselves. Else, give GMail accounts to all @gnome.org people, and just put an alias into place. And move MLs to google groups. Maintaining a mail server is quite frankly a pain in the ass, spam filters, CVEs and all, so why losing sysadmining time onto it, when GMail works technically better than anything else going around? (that was a rhetorical question, of course). Cheers, -- Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : mat...@member.fsf.org -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/E d--(-) s+: a- C+++ UL+++ P+ L$ E+ W+++ N+ o? w--- O M- V- PS++ PE- Y+++ PGP+++ t++ 5 X- R+ !tv b+++ DI++ D++ G++ e++ h+ r++ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 04:50:14PM +0200, Matteo Settenvini wrote: those services have the same problems of github, and free alternatives do exist. So, for starters ... - What is the free alternative to Google Hangouts? - What is the free alternative to Twitter with the same user base? This is not a matter of having a free software program that lets you microblog, it is a matter of having a significant user base. Otherwise there is no point in using it for outreach. Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : mat...@member.fsf.org Would you recommend that we only preach to the choir? Or do you also want us to reach those who might not have heard about us? -- Life is like bein' on a mule team. Unless you're the lead mule, all the scenery looks about the same. pgpRodUZ_v98F.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 10:17 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: There's possibly a discussion to have about whether GNOME should use proprietary services for outreach, but GitHub isn't really anything new here. In my opinion, if you feel strongly about the use of proprietary services for outreach, perhaps GNOME isn't the greatest fit for you. What a terrible thing to say. If you disagree with some decisions, then you don't belong here? There's no room for diversity of opinion in our community? That doesn't sound like the GNOME I joined ten years ago. -- Shaun ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Matteo Settenvini matteo...@member.fsf.org wrote: Il giorno ven, 16/08/2013 alle 10.17 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre ha scritto: As I've said before, GNOME uses proprietary services for collaboration and outreach. We have active presences on the proprietary communication services Google+, Facebook, and Twitter. We displayed a large Twitter wall at GUADEC showing tweets tagged with the hashtag #guadec. GitHub is just another one of these services we use for community outreach, and I fail to see how it's any different than any of the others. You are of course right. The matter should be probably discussed, as those services have the same problems of github, and free alternatives do exist. There's possibly a discussion to have about whether GNOME should use proprietary services for outreach, but GitHub isn't really anything new here. In my opinion, if you feel strongly about the use of proprietary services for outreach, perhaps GNOME isn't the greatest fit for you. Excuse me, but I happen to like GNOME, to like how it's designed, build, and the developer community it has. I love GNOME devs, and I think they are some of the best guys in FLOSS. I like the attention to details, the project license, and the respect of the users freedom that comes with it. Last time I checked, it is still part of the GNU Project! It was one of the main reasons I got away from KDE years ago, in favor of GNOME. Why shouldn't I try to change the (poor) direction things are taking to preserve a piece of software, freedom and above all community I have an emotional attachment to? Or is it already the situation so desperate that GNOME is not the greatest fit for me, and I should look elsewhere (don't bother, go away)? In the end, I might just do so, if everyone turns out to be uninterested in the fundamental values of free software. For once, I might start by canceling my monthly donations. And with me, others — fewer than you would gain by aggressive marketing, sure, but still. I always advocate for GNOME. I'd hate starting to advocate against it. You can indeed become fairly popular ignoring fundamental users' freedoms (look at Ubuntu). But what are you willing to give up just to be popular? Many a showgirl would give answers on that topic that would make a seasoned sailor blush... I hope GNOME is not selling out. In the end, you just find yourself more and more tied to those proprietary services you tried to escape in the first place by creating a system such as GNOME. If you have a Facebook account, for instance, think how willing you are to close it down, even now after seeing the Snowden datagate emerging. Besides, while github is not free, gitorious and others are. Diaspora is still experimental and not on-par with things such as Google+ or Facebook, but gitorious is a good alternative. So even on a technical level, this choice reeks. Also because by working with e.g. the gitorious team, one could have also found more bugs / asked for some features which would then be fixed in an open-source product, benefiting the community at large. So there's an indirect contribution too to the well-being of everyone. gitorious is not an good alternative. It's slow, buggy, and does not support the common operations that GitHub does. I can't view images from the gitorious viewer. I can't view raw files. I've never managed to get in contact with the gitorious team. As far as I can tell, they've fallen off the face of the earth. Ask Richard Hughsie why he moved colord from gitorious to GitHub. There's good reasons we're trying to get away from it. I'm not implying a slippery-slope argument here: I don't think GNOME will become closed source in the near future, or anything like that. But there have been constant signs of going adrift in latest years, and not always users have been heard out / notified. A community needs to be built, or it will dissolve. While I appreciate the development effort went into GNOME in the 3.x cycle, I also believe that it has not gotten better at all in community-building, hemorrhaging users to other DEs. And it won't be Facebook, Google+ or github to solve the fundamental problem: poor communication and unilateral decisions (especially from the designers, sorry guys) instead of building consensus or at least discussing why their ideas are sounder than the others'. Anyway, interoperability from GNOME's side with proprietary systems is good. It allows users, if informed correctly, even to migrate and transition to open systems. But relying on proprietary systems still sends the wrong message, imho. It's like we cannot come up with something working ourselves. We aren't relying on proprietary systems. It's just a mirror; GitHub isn't our primary hosting system, and http://git.gnome.org/ will still exist. It's there so that we have an official GitHub presence so that GitHub users don't
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote: On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 10:17 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: There's possibly a discussion to have about whether GNOME should use proprietary services for outreach, but GitHub isn't really anything new here. In my opinion, if you feel strongly about the use of proprietary services for outreach, perhaps GNOME isn't the greatest fit for you. What a terrible thing to say. If you disagree with some decisions, then you don't belong here? There's no room for diversity of opinion in our community? That doesn't sound like the GNOME I joined ten years ago. I'm not trying to say you can't disagree with GNOME's decisions or talk about them, just that the way I see it, I don't see things changing. From what I've seen over the years, I think we're more accepting of proprietary services. We introduced GNOME Online Accounts for integration with Gmail, Facebook, Windows Live and Twitter. We're discussing pulling user avatars from services like Gravatar. We're actively marketing through services like Twitter. If you're not happy with that, we can certainly bring it up to the board and talk about it, but from how I see things, I don't think we'll remove GNOME Online Accounts integration or stop our Twitter marketing campaigns. So, I'm saying that if you're not happy with those directions, I think GNOME may not be the best place for you. -- Shaun ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Jasper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
Jasper St. Pierre wrote: If you're not happy with that, we can certainly bring it up to the board and talk about it, but from how I see things, I don't think we'll remove GNOME Online Accounts integration or stop our Twitter marketing campaigns. So, I'm saying that if you're not happy with those directions, I think GNOME may not be the best place for you. Or we can keep on working in GNOME, and encourage developments such as the Owncloud support that got added to GNOME Online Accounts. Fred ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On 08/16/2013 05:36 PM, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org mailto:sha...@gnome.org wrote: On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 10:17 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: There's possibly a discussion to have about whether GNOME should use proprietary services for outreach, but GitHub isn't really anything new here. In my opinion, if you feel strongly about the use of proprietary services for outreach, perhaps GNOME isn't the greatest fit for you. What a terrible thing to say. If you disagree with some decisions, then you don't belong here? There's no room for diversity of opinion in our community? That doesn't sound like the GNOME I joined ten years ago. I'm not trying to say you can't disagree with GNOME's decisions or talk about them, just that the way I see it, I don't see things changing. From what I've seen over the years, I think we're more accepting of proprietary services. We introduced GNOME Online Accounts for integration with Gmail, Facebook, Windows Live and Twitter. We're discussing pulling user avatars from services like Gravatar. We're actively marketing through services like Twitter. If you're not happy with that, we can certainly bring it up to the board and talk about it, but from how I see things, I don't think we'll remove GNOME Online Accounts integration or stop our Twitter marketing campaigns. So, I'm saying that if you're not happy with those directions, I think GNOME may not be the best place for you. I think it is the best place for him to be, it's just that it's a bigger fight to fight. I don't think being able to connect to, say Google in addition to OwnCloud in online-accounts is any different from being able to connect to ICQ in addition to Jabber in Empathy, something that's been possible for years. Likewise, yes, we send status updates to twitter in addition to identi.ca. We send it anywhere it's possible to send as it's fairly automatic to forward things between the different services. That said, in the past, someone had to do the work to make Jabber better than ICQ. I think now is a good opportunity to for everyone interested in making something like, say, Gitorious kicking Github's ass in cheer quality to do so. It is outside the realm and competence of this project though, we are busy solving the problems in our area of a free computing experience as it is. - Andreas ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote: There's possibly a discussion to have about whether GNOME should use proprietary services for outreach, but GitHub isn't really anything new here. In my opinion, if you feel strongly about the use of proprietary services for outreach, perhaps GNOME isn't the greatest fit for you. What a terrible thing to say. If you disagree with some decisions, then you don't belong here? There's no room for diversity of opinion in our community? That doesn't sound like the GNOME I joined ten years ago. I wouldn't take one comment on a mailing list as being representative of GNOME in general. Allan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. When you say that GitHub is nonfree, what do you mean by that? We do not have any definition for calling a service free or nonfree. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html. It's as much nonfree as Skype which you mention in your signature: Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. With all due respect, I think that is a misunderstanding. I'm talking about a program called Skype, which is nonfree. Skype is used with a service, but I'm talking about the program, and say so explicitly. The service is unjust too, due to Big Brother surveillance, but that's a different issue. Until today, I was thinking of GitHub as a service, pure and simple, and believed that the programs used to access it are git (which is free) and a web browser (which can be free). Thus, no nonfree software required. However, today Shaun McCance wrote: The normal way of interacting with the extra services is using the web site, and the web site does require non-free JavaScript to work. But GitHub does provide an HTTP-based API that allows you to write entirely free software yourself to interact with these services. If some GitHub features require running nonfree Javascript, that means users have to run nonfree software. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html.) This is indeed comparable to the problem Skype has. If these are only some obscure features that people can do without, maybe we can ignore it. I don't know. If users can avoid the nonfree JS by using the API, that solves the problem. Is this a real option or only a theoretical one? Is usable free software available NOW to use all the GitHub functionality through that API? When we tell people about a GitHub repository, do we recommend that free software? If so, maybe things are ok. If not, there is a problem. We should not to urge people to run nonfree Javascript. What are the alternatives? * We can try to convince GitHub to free its Javascript. That would be the best outcome. * We can write the free software to do this thru the API and then prominently suggest using it. * We can avoid suggesting people use GitHub. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Il giorno ven, 16/08/2013 alle 12.55 -0400, Richard Stallman ha scritto: [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. Until today, I was thinking of GitHub as a service, pure and simple, and believed that the programs used to access it are git (which is free) and a web browser (which can be free). Thus, no nonfree software required. To Richard: I would like a clarification in this respect. If I use a non-free web service (for instance, a web service for which the source code to install it and run it locally is not available), even through a web API, is it really different from linking to a proprietary library from my GPL program? I am talking on *ethical*, not technical grounds. Calling a function inside a proprietary library is just passing in some arguments and awaiting a return value, after the code inside the library does something. Calling a web service is just the same, except I have usually to serialize my values to be passed as parameters, and the code runs remotely instead than locally. But I still don't control what's happening in the middle. Do you think it is ethically acceptable for a free-software program to use a proprietary web service API? Thanks, -- Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : mat...@member.fsf.org -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/E d--(-) s+: a- C+++ UL+++ P+ L$ E+ W+++ N+ o? w--- O M- V- PS++ PE- Y+++ PGP+++ t++ 5 X- R+ !tv b+++ DI++ D++ G++ e++ h+ r++ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
On ו', 2013-08-16 at 10:11 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: On 16 August 2013 07:48, fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.org wrote: True, I don't suggest to prevent the mirrors: Just not automate. Anyone can create a mirror manually, and it's their freedom to do so. But I don't think maintainers should have their modules automatically synced to GitHub without allowing them to switch it off. May I suggest that you read the GPL[1] again? Term #1 of GPLv2 says, You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium. A maintainer of a GPL v2+ module has absolutely no right to stop anyone making a public exact copy of the software (automatic or otherwise). The license does not allow him to discriminate against companies that he doesn't like. See also #5 and #6 of the Open Source Definition. Sure. I don't *stop* anyone. I just ask for an on/off switch, because I feel maintainers should have such a switch. There's a huge difference between a person making a fork, and the whole GNOME project officially having GitHub mirrors. Therefore, by turning off mirroring for a module, you don't block anything or stop anything - you just avoid pointing to a proprietary service, which is legitimate in my opinion. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html [2] http://opensource.org/osd Jeremy ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: gitorious limitations [was: Re: Passive resistance [was: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]]
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Matteo Settenvini mat...@member.fsf.orgwrote: Il giorno ven, 16/08/2013 alle 11.27 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre ha scritto: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Matteo Settenvini matteo...@member.fsf.org wrote: Besides, while github is not free, gitorious and others are. Diaspora is still experimental and not on-par with things such as Google+ or Facebook, but gitorious is a good alternative. So even on a technical level, this choice reeks. Also because by working with e.g. the gitorious team, one could have also found more bugs / asked for some features which would then be fixed in an open-source product, benefiting the community at large. So there's an indirect contribution too to the well-being of everyone. gitorious is not an good alternative. It's slow, buggy, and does not support the common operations that GitHub does. I can't view images from the gitorious viewer. I can't view raw files. I've never managed to get in contact with the gitorious team. As far as I can tell, they've fallen off the face of the earth. Ask Richard Hughsie why he moved colord from gitorious to GitHub. There's good reasons we're trying to get away from it. I know I am going slightly (but only slightly) off-topic, but would you and Richard (whom I Cc'ed) care to give me a short list of items you find annoying in gitorious? I'm just going to say to actually try to use it for a day. Here's two links: https://github.com/hughsie/colord https://gitorious.org/packagekit Try these tasks: * Gauge how much activity the project has seen over the last few months. * Look at what kinds of things have happened to the repo recently. * In PackageKit, try to find the source code to the NPAPI browser plugin. In colord, try to find the iccdump utility. As you explore around, notice how you feel about each site. What's the color scheme like on your eyes? Is one easier to read and pick information out of? What's the page speed? Does everything give you the information you want, when you want? Here's a specific example: On the gitorious page, for recent activity, it tells me that hughsie pushed 4 commits. It doesn't tell me which ones, instead opting to waste a lot of whitespace explaining master changed from ded2939 to b4244e4. GitHub is architected a bit differently (it doesn't have a project / repo split), so the closest analog I can find is hughsie's Public Activity tab ( https://github.com/hughsie?tab=activity ) Look at how commit activity is represented there. It gives a commit message, the author's gravatar for each commit, and a link to the full commit view with a commit message and diff. GitHub has six or seven full-time UX designers actively working to make the website more comfortable to use every day, and they deploy new features rapidly. I don't know if the same can be said for any open-source clone. I should have some free time starting November, and some good Rails experience, so maybe I can submit some patches a few months from now. I am involved in some other projects too, so I don't know about my priorities, but I'll keep this under my radar. If I have to say anything, it's that working on gitorious is a dead end. You can try to fix GitLab, which is a GitHub ripoff, or you can try to improve cgit by adding features and new designs, which might be worth exploring, but I don't think any of that is worth your time. If there's anything I want people to do, it's to stop the countless open source versions of proprietary services things there are. The X but open source (Twitter/Identi.ca, Facebook/Diaspora, GitLab/Gitorious/GitHub, Askbot/StackOverflow) are some of the most hurtful things to the brand of both free software and open source that I can think of, and they're probably the biggest thing right now that give open source software a bad name. I'll elaborate if you would like me to, but this is another tangential discussion. Thanks, -- Matteo Settenvini FSF Associated Member Email : mat...@member.fsf.org -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/E d--(-) s+: a- C+++ UL+++ P+ L$ E+ W+++ N+ o? w--- O M- V- PS++ PE- Y+++ PGP+++ t++ 5 X- R+ !tv b+++ DI++ D++ G++ e++ h+ r++ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- Jasper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. I believe the mentioned article answers your question: GitHub is essentially SaaS. A proprietary one. Hosting services in general are not SaaSS. Maybe some specific thing about GitHub is SaaSS; if so, can you explain the details? And what do you mean when you say it is proprietary? We don't have a definition of proprietary for services. Apparently the JavaScript programs it sends to the user are proprietary, and that is a real issue, but these programs are not the same as the service per se. Your git workflow becomes dependent on GitHub's features and infrastructure, Could you explain concretely (to me, maybe not to the list) what this means? I have never used GitHub, and I could not easily try. hence you're denied your freedom (e.g. GitHub could send account details to a 3rd party, etc. just like many other services, or vendor-lock you from easily migrating your workflow to other git hosting services). Any service can give information about you to big brother. It is a common drawback of all services, so it does not make GitHub worse than any other service. What specific sort of vendor-lock do you see as a danger in regard to GitHub? -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
I wrote: If users can avoid the nonfree JS by using the API, that solves the problem. but I should have written If users can avoid the nonfree JS by using the API, that potentially solves the problem. Which is why I asked Is this a real option or only a theoretical one? Is usable free software available NOW to use all the GitHub functionality through that API? When we tell people about a GitHub repository, do we recommend that free software? If so, maybe things are ok. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. To Richard: I would like a clarification in this respect. If I use a non-free web service (for instance, a web service for which the source code to install it and run it locally is not available), I think it is a mistake to use the term non-free web service with that definition, because that question is not what makes a web service ethical or unethical. If the server does a job you could do in your own computer, even in principle, then it's SaaSS and it's bad. Otherwise, the issues that make the service ethical or unethical are other issues. is it really different from linking to a proprietary library from my GPL program? Using a service run by someone else is like asking him to do a job for you. If he uses nonfree software to do the job, that's his mistake and his loss. We are sorry for him, but we don't need to boycott him because of that. Thus, for instance, we don't need to refuse to take the subway because the subway system has computers with Windows, or refuse to make a phone call because the phone exchange uses runs proprietary software, or refuse to make a connection across the Internet because it might pass through some routers that run nonfree software, or refuse to order t-shirts because the shirt company might use Windows to make shirts. In these cases, we're not using that software -- the companies are using it. If it's proprietary, the companies are the ones whose freedom is taken away. When you use someone else's service, you never have control over any software he uses to do your job. If it's free software, he has control. If it's proprietary, he doesn't have control (which is an injustice towards him). But either way, you don't have control over it. That's the nature of a service -- but is it bad? In some cases, it is bad. There are certain jobs that you shouldn't entrust to someone else's service, because you should have control over them. Namely, these are the jobs you could do in your own computer. Using a service for those jobs is SaaSS. If a given service is equivalent to calling a library in your computer, then it is SaaSS, so it is bad. Even if the server runs only released free software, SaaSS is still bad. In order to have control of this computing, you need to do it by calling a free library in your computer. That's the way it should be done. But I don't think that applies to most of what GitHub or Savannah does. Those are communication activities. You couldn't do them by calling a library in your own computer. So it is ok to use services for that (but pay attention to the privacy issues). However, it would be nice if we could do it in a peer-to-peer fashion. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 19:09 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: Hosting services in general are not SaaSS. Maybe some specific thing about GitHub is SaaSS; if so, can you explain the details? Please take discussions of GitHub off-list. The Foundation Board will discuss the GNOME mirror during its next meeting, and this thread is just feeding noise into the mailing list. Thanks, Federico ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Hello everyone, I've been working with the GitHub guys and Andrea Veri on setting up a mirror for all GNOME repos in GitHub. I have more detailes about this in a blog post[0] I just published. The aim of this mirror is just to serve as a starting point for people wanting to have a public branch where they can publicize their work even if they don't have a GNOME account. It should also help maintainers keep track of the work people is doing out there with their code. There's no intention to support pull requests or to depend in any way in this service, this is just a nice-to-have to serve the GitHub's community and user base. The hooks are supposed to be non invasive and this should be completely transparent to the rest of our infrastructure, if you have any issues feel free to get in touch with me or Andrea! Let me know if you have any questions or requests, happy hacking! [0] http://aruiz.synaptia.net/siliconisland/2013/08/gnomes-official-github-mirror.html -- Cheers, Alberto Ruiz ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Hello, GitHub indeed offers many features that Gnome's git web interface doesn't. But may I ask why you chose GitHub and not some other service? I'll tell you why it's important in my humble opinion, to ask this question. As you many have heard already, most Git hosting websites use proprietary software and are impossible to clone, which means these services are *partially proprietary* and it means they are *centralized*. Examples: GitHub Google Code SourceForge Launchpad (may technically be opensource but running a clone is forbidden = not really free software...) Actually, the only service I know which is truly free software IIRC, is Gitorious. Also, there's GitLab. They run servers but you can easily setup your own server, being idenpendent and running on fully free software. I just wanted to know whether you took these things into account. (Certainly the popularity of GitHub is not the reason you chose it I guess, just like the popularity of Windows doesn't make us focus on Windows support, and the popularity of Skype doesn't make us focus on Skype connectivity of our apps). Regards, fr33domlover On ה', 2013-08-15 at 11:03 +0200, Alberto Ruiz wrote: Hello everyone, I've been working with the GitHub guys and Andrea Veri on setting up a mirror for all GNOME repos in GitHub. I have more detailes about this in a blog post[0] I just published. The aim of this mirror is just to serve as a starting point for people wanting to have a public branch where they can publicize their work even if they don't have a GNOME account. It should also help maintainers keep track of the work people is doing out there with their code. There's no intention to support pull requests or to depend in any way in this service, this is just a nice-to-have to serve the GitHub's community and user base. The hooks are supposed to be non invasive and this should be completely transparent to the rest of our infrastructure, if you have any issues feel free to get in touch with me or Andrea! Let me know if you have any questions or requests, happy hacking! [0] http://aruiz.synaptia.net/siliconisland/2013/08/gnomes-official-github-mirror.html ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM, אנטולי קרסנר fr33domlo...@mailoo.org wrote: Hello, Hi, Examples: […] SourceForge SourceForge is actually free software now. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge#Apache_relicense (Certainly the popularity of GitHub is not the reason you chose it I guess, just like the popularity of Windows doesn't make us focus on Windows support, and the popularity of Skype doesn't make us focus on As you can see in Alberto's answer, it is indeed just a question of popularity and I agree with you that this is a sad thing. -- Alexandre Franke ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Hello Alexandre, 2013/8/15 Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com: (Certainly the popularity of GitHub is not the reason you chose it I guess, just like the popularity of Windows doesn't make us focus on Windows support, and the popularity of Skype doesn't make us focus on As you can see in Alberto's answer, it is indeed just a question of popularity and I agree with you that this is a sad thing. We should pick our fights, on the other hand, GitHub has released more open source code and tools than the gitorious community. We accept money from Google for the GSoC's every year and I see no complaints. Everything is a matter on how you look at things really. As I mentioned before, if you want a gitorious mirror, feel free to start working on it, I fully support the idea, I'm just not interested in investing the time on it myself because I see no much value in it (on the other hand, I see the value on running our own instance). -- Cheers, Alberto Ruiz ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote: We should pick our fights, on the other hand, GitHub has released more open source code and tools than the gitorious community. We accept money from Google for the GSoC's every year and I see no complaints. Everything is a matter on how you look at things really. I agree that everyone should be free to pick their fights. I agree that you you are free to pick yours and have them different from mine. Do you agree that mine can be different from yours? As I mentioned before, if you want a gitorious mirror, feel free to start working on it, I fully support the idea, I'm just not interested in investing the time on it myself because I see no much value in it (on the other hand, I see the value on running our own instance). I really don't care much about my code being mirrored anywhere. At least gitorious would be ethically acceptable, so it wouldn't bother me, but I won't invest time in this. I see the value of this as a backup though, so if others want to work on this I say that's a good thing. Anyway this is really not what was the most important point to me in my previous email and you didn't answer the question I really cared about, so I'm asking again: is there a way for maintainers to opt out of the github mirroring? -- Alexandre Franke ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
2013/8/15 Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote: We should pick our fights, on the other hand, GitHub has released more open source code and tools than the gitorious community. We accept money from Google for the GSoC's every year and I see no complaints. Everything is a matter on how you look at things really. I agree that everyone should be free to pick their fights. I agree that you you are free to pick yours and have them different from mine. Do you agree that mine can be different from yours? Absolutely. I really don't care much about my code being mirrored anywhere. At least gitorious would be ethically acceptable, so it wouldn't bother me, but I won't invest time in this. I see the value of this as a backup though, so if others want to work on this I say that's a good thing. Anyway this is really not what was the most important point to me in my previous email and you didn't answer the question I really cared about, so I'm asking again: is there a way for maintainers to opt out of the github mirroring? At the moment, no there isn't. Patches to the hook and help to make this happen are welcome. -- Cheers, Alberto Ruiz ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Hey, On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:07:23PM +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: Anyway this is really not what was the most important point to me in my previous email and you didn't answer the question I really cared about, so I'm asking again: is there a way for maintainers to opt out of the github mirroring? Speaking as someone who has a Gitorious account and not a GitHub one, what will you gain by opting out? It won't stop someone from cloning your code on GitHub. This way you atleast have a canonical tree on GitHub where you can see what people are doing with your stuff. Basically, I don't think that choosing to opt-out is strong enough message even on ethical grounds. Cheers, Debarshi -- Life is like bein' on a mule team. Unless you're the lead mule, all the scenery looks about the same. pgpaOaXH9F1Yv.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se wrote: Speaking as someone who has a Gitorious account and not a GitHub one, what will you gain by opting out? It won't stop someone from cloning your code on GitHub. This way you atleast have a canonical tree on GitHub where you can see what people are doing with your stuff. I agree that people are free to take code and copy it there. This doesn't mean that we should make it easy for them. Actually, the fact that we have to ask to opt out is an issue in itself. We shouldn't even have to. This should have been opt in from the start. People (maintainers and commiters in this case) shouldn't have to fight to get back what you have taken away from them. Basically, I don't think that choosing to opt-out is strong enough message even on ethical grounds. What you're saying is basically that if someone's fight is not worth fighting, we shouldn't let them fight it. -- Alexandre Franke ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
hi; On 15 August 2013 11:38, Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se wrote: Speaking as someone who has a Gitorious account and not a GitHub one, what will you gain by opting out? It won't stop someone from cloning your code on GitHub. This way you atleast have a canonical tree on GitHub where you can see what people are doing with your stuff. I agree that people are free to take code and copy it there. This doesn't mean that we should make it easy for them. I thought that making it easy for them to take the code and copy it was the entire point of using a distributed version control system. actually, I was pretty sure that this was the whole point of having free access to the software source code in the first place. Actually, the fact that we have to ask to opt out is an issue in itself. We shouldn't even have to. This should have been opt in from the start. People (maintainers and commiters in this case) shouldn't have to fight to get back what you have taken away from them. considering that this is a mirroring system of a distributed version control system, I'm puzzled as to what has been lost. you still have all your rights to the software you maintain and commit to, and you still have the right to push your work to more than one repository. care to elaborate a bit more on this? ciao, Emmanuele. -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
The results GitHub brings are not relevant in this case. TONS of useful software have been created - and are still being created - using Microsoft tools, and many other proprietary tools. So what? I think it's somewhat unfair to make the GitHub mirroring automatic and let people send their patches. What if I don't know how to do it or have no time? I think it should be every maintainer's right to decide they don't want to cooperate with a proprietary service. You don't see complaints about GSoC because money blinds people. But here you go: I hereby complain about the policy of Gnome projects to supply support for Google, Facebook and Live.com before they even consider adding similar support for free open alternatives (such as Diaspora, Friendica and MediaGoblin). To be honest, none of my code belongs to Gnome, and I use only Gitorious for hosting. But this upcoming GitHub support would just discourage me from wanting to contribute upstream, and discourage freedom-enthusiasts from joining in. On ה', 2013-08-15 at 12:11 +0200, Alberto Ruiz wrote: 2013/8/15 Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote: We should pick our fights, on the other hand, GitHub has released more open source code and tools than the gitorious community. We accept money from Google for the GSoC's every year and I see no complaints. Everything is a matter on how you look at things really. I agree that everyone should be free to pick their fights. I agree that you you are free to pick yours and have them different from mine. Do you agree that mine can be different from yours? Absolutely. I really don't care much about my code being mirrored anywhere. At least gitorious would be ethically acceptable, so it wouldn't bother me, but I won't invest time in this. I see the value of this as a backup though, so if others want to work on this I say that's a good thing. Anyway this is really not what was the most important point to me in my previous email and you didn't answer the question I really cared about, so I'm asking again: is there a way for maintainers to opt out of the github mirroring? At the moment, no there isn't. Patches to the hook and help to make this happen are welcome. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Emmanuele Bassi eba...@gmail.com wrote: I thought that making it easy for them to take the code and copy it was the entire point of using a distributed version control system. actually, I was pretty sure that this was the whole point of having free access to the software source code in the first place. I have nothing against free access to the source code. git.gnome.org already ensures that. As I said earlier, if someone wants to clone a module to work on it and have their clone on github because that's where they chose to host it to share their work, fine by me. This is already possible without the GNOME mirror. This doesn't mean I have to endorse it, or approve a move towards it. considering that this is a mirroring system of a distributed version control system, I'm puzzled as to what has been lost. you still have all your rights to the software you maintain and commit to, and you still have the right to push your work to more than one repository. care to elaborate a bit more on this? Frankly, I am not really motivated to elaborate more. As you can see from this thread, people disagree with this action, which has been taken in their name (as they are GNOME foundation members, GNOME module maintainers and GNOME committers). It should be possible for them not to have their name associated with it, whatever their reasons are, and without having to justify themselves. -- Alexandre Franke ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 12:07 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: I really don't care much about my code being mirrored anywhere. Anyway this is really not what was the most important point to me in my previous email and you didn't answer the question I really cared about, so I'm asking again: is there a way for maintainers to opt out of the github mirroring? I don't see any question in your last email, so you're not asking *again*. If you don't care much about your code being mirrored, it probably means that Can maintainers opt out? is a theoretical question. Or even a non-existing problem (so far). I hope there's no opt-out to avoid a cumbersome You can get most of GNOME's codebase also on the most popular code hosting website, but not everything because not all maintainers liked that idea situation. andre -- Andre Klapper | ak...@gmx.net http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 13:39 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: I don't see any question in your last email, so you're not asking *again*. Ah. Either you asked on foundation-list only and not d-d-l, or my mail filters are wonky. Sorry. andre -- Andre Klapper | ak...@gmx.net http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote: On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 12:07 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: I really don't care much about my code being mirrored anywhere. If you don't care much about your code being mirrored, it probably means that Can maintainers opt out? is a theoretical question. Or even a non-existing problem (so far). Ok, I probably misphrased that since English is not my native language. What I meant is that my code being mirrored is not something I want to push for, it's not something I consider as needed. That was an explanation for the fact that I won't be contributing to a gitorious mirror. That didn't mean that having the github mirror is a non-issue to me. I hope this makes my opinion clearer. -- Alexandre Franke ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Le 15/08/2013 12:44, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : Actually, the fact that we have to ask to opt out is an issue in itself. We shouldn't even have to. This should have been opt in from the start. People (maintainers and commiters in this case) shouldn't have to fight to get back what you have taken away from them. considering that this is a mirroring system of a distributed version control system, I'm puzzled as to what has been lost. you still have all your rights to the software you maintain and commit to, and you still have the right to push your work to more than one repository. care to elaborate a bit more on this? I'm not a maintainer, but it seems to me that a maintainer may want as few entry points for patches as possible, or at least not need to poll to find patches. We already have bugzilla, or git.gnome.org. If extra clones exist and seem officially endorsed by GNOME, and there's no process to send those patches upstream, this clearly means it's up to the maintainer to poll for patches on these extra clones. If the maintainer agrees to look to those extra clones, all is well, but if he decides he won't look at them (because it's too much work, or for whatever other reason), he may want to disable them. That's because when people put GNOME code on Github themselves, they don't expect the maintainer to be aware of that. If *we* clone it there, then there may be expectations, giving the illusion the maintainer cares about what is done there. IMHO, if we want all of GNOME source cloned, and don't want to allow each maintainer to opt-out of extra clones, we should at the very least have a disclaimer telling that the maintainer encourages upstream contribution and should not be expected to poll or care about that extra clone. Another way would be to give information about the coding standards where are the extra clones, and allow pull requests. But this would put extra pressure on the maintainer. My 2 cents... -- Luis Menina ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
hi Luis; thanks for answering. On 15 August 2013 13:00, Luis Menina liberfo...@freeside.fr wrote: Le 15/08/2013 12:44, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : Actually, the fact that we have to ask to opt out is an issue in itself. We shouldn't even have to. This should have been opt in from the start. People (maintainers and commiters in this case) shouldn't have to fight to get back what you have taken away from them. considering that this is a mirroring system of a distributed version control system, I'm puzzled as to what has been lost. you still have all your rights to the software you maintain and commit to, and you still have the right to push your work to more than one repository. care to elaborate a bit more on this? I'm not a maintainer, but it seems to me that a maintainer may want as few entry points for patches as possible, or at least not need to poll to find patches. We already have bugzilla, or git.gnome.org. If extra clones exist and seem officially endorsed by GNOME, and there's no process to send those patches upstream, this clearly means it's up to the maintainer to poll for patches on these extra clones. as I said the last time the idea of a github clone was being floated around, I don't want to look in multiple places for patches. nor I want to get pull requests from mirrors I don't maintain directly — and even then, I basically always say that if a patch is not on Bugzilla, then it doesn't exist. the work that Alberto did, though, seem to be clear that: a) the canonical place for submitting patches is Bugzilla, and b) the GitHub clones are for mirroring only, so that people can easily create a public fork on their own GitHub account when they wish to hack on something. it is, essentially, a read-only mirror. as a maintainer, I don't have a problem with exposing my code on multiple venues — that's what I do already every day. ciao, Emmanuele. -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
No problems, GNOME having read-only mirrors can be useful to people. Just make sure there's an easy way to opt out. For example, I wouldn't want any of my code automatically uploaded to GitHub. I think every maintainer should have the right to cancel mirroring for their module. If GitHub was free software, decentralized, etc, then I could maybe agree that mirroring can be activated by default for existing and new modules. But considering the nature of GitHub, I consider it somewhat rude to mirror a module without letting a maintainer an option to cancel it, or make it disabled by default and allowing the maintainer to switch it on. On ה', 2013-08-15 at 13:20 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: hi Luis; thanks for answering. On 15 August 2013 13:00, Luis Menina liberfo...@freeside.fr wrote: Le 15/08/2013 12:44, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : Actually, the fact that we have to ask to opt out is an issue in itself. We shouldn't even have to. This should have been opt in from the start. People (maintainers and commiters in this case) shouldn't have to fight to get back what you have taken away from them. considering that this is a mirroring system of a distributed version control system, I'm puzzled as to what has been lost. you still have all your rights to the software you maintain and commit to, and you still have the right to push your work to more than one repository. care to elaborate a bit more on this? I'm not a maintainer, but it seems to me that a maintainer may want as few entry points for patches as possible, or at least not need to poll to find patches. We already have bugzilla, or git.gnome.org. If extra clones exist and seem officially endorsed by GNOME, and there's no process to send those patches upstream, this clearly means it's up to the maintainer to poll for patches on these extra clones. as I said the last time the idea of a github clone was being floated around, I don't want to look in multiple places for patches. nor I want to get pull requests from mirrors I don't maintain directly — and even then, I basically always say that if a patch is not on Bugzilla, then it doesn't exist. the work that Alberto did, though, seem to be clear that: a) the canonical place for submitting patches is Bugzilla, and b) the GitHub clones are for mirroring only, so that people can easily create a public fork on their own GitHub account when they wish to hack on something. it is, essentially, a read-only mirror. as a maintainer, I don't have a problem with exposing my code on multiple venues — that's what I do already every day. ciao, Emmanuele. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:34 AM, fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.orgwrote: No problems, GNOME having read-only mirrors can be useful to people. Just make sure there's an easy way to opt out. For example, I wouldn't want any of my code automatically uploaded to GitHub. I think every maintainer should have the right to cancel mirroring for their module. If GitHub was free software, decentralized, etc, then I could maybe agree that mirroring can be activated by default for existing and new modules. But considering the nature of GitHub, I consider it somewhat rude to mirror a module without letting a maintainer an option to cancel it, or make it disabled by default and allowing the maintainer to switch it on. Who gets the say? What happens if there's two maintainers to a project? What if you've contributed code to GNOME that's under a different repository. What happens if someone manually mirrors your repository under their own name. It's not realistic to have an opt-out button for contributors. It's free software, and that doesn't change whether we put it on a proprietary platform or not. On ה', 2013-08-15 at 13:20 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: hi Luis; thanks for answering. On 15 August 2013 13:00, Luis Menina liberfo...@freeside.fr wrote: Le 15/08/2013 12:44, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : Actually, the fact that we have to ask to opt out is an issue in itself. We shouldn't even have to. This should have been opt in from the start. People (maintainers and commiters in this case) shouldn't have to fight to get back what you have taken away from them. considering that this is a mirroring system of a distributed version control system, I'm puzzled as to what has been lost. you still have all your rights to the software you maintain and commit to, and you still have the right to push your work to more than one repository. care to elaborate a bit more on this? I'm not a maintainer, but it seems to me that a maintainer may want as few entry points for patches as possible, or at least not need to poll to find patches. We already have bugzilla, or git.gnome.org. If extra clones exist and seem officially endorsed by GNOME, and there's no process to send those patches upstream, this clearly means it's up to the maintainer to poll for patches on these extra clones. as I said the last time the idea of a github clone was being floated around, I don't want to look in multiple places for patches. nor I want to get pull requests from mirrors I don't maintain directly — and even then, I basically always say that if a patch is not on Bugzilla, then it doesn't exist. the work that Alberto did, though, seem to be clear that: a) the canonical place for submitting patches is Bugzilla, and b) the GitHub clones are for mirroring only, so that people can easily create a public fork on their own GitHub account when they wish to hack on something. it is, essentially, a read-only mirror. as a maintainer, I don't have a problem with exposing my code on multiple venues — that's what I do already every day. ciao, Emmanuele. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Jasper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:07:23PM +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote: We should pick our fights, on the other hand, GitHub has released more open source code and tools than the gitorious community. We accept money from Google for the GSoC's every year and I see no complaints. Everything is a matter on how you look at things really. I agree that everyone should be free to pick their fights. I agree that you you are free to pick yours and have them different from mine. Do you agree that mine can be different from yours? And, yet, you use GMail. Cheers, Debarshi -- Life is like bein' on a mule team. Unless you're the lead mule, all the scenery looks about the same. pgpKMwwORb3Ka.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Hey there, I can't help but notice that your mail provider, mailoo has a twitter account to promote themselves: https://twitter.com/mailoopointorg You should switch your email provider immediatly, as they are promoting a centralized closed source service in their very frontpage! 2013/8/15 fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.org: Hey Jasper, Excellent questions. I suggest module maintainers decide together on each module, and other people can't control the mirroring in their name. You can suggest all that you want, but until the day Or just take the simple solution: Use a free software decentralized git hosting. For example Gitorious or Gitlab. Gitlab seems to have many cool features like Github and it's fully free software you can run on your own server. Does anyone have something against using these, instead of the proprietary centralized alternative GitHub, which happens to be popular? It's not my fault people use GitHub. It certainly doesn't mean I get basic rights taken, just because people don't care enough about the freedom of the software they use. I refuse to endorse Github in any way, on the grounds of it being partially proprietary and centralized. Can anything make more sense than this? Isn't software freedom our basics? On ה', 2013-08-15 at 08:37 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:34 AM, fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.org wrote: No problems, GNOME having read-only mirrors can be useful to people. Just make sure there's an easy way to opt out. For example, I wouldn't want any of my code automatically uploaded to GitHub. I think every maintainer should have the right to cancel mirroring for their module. If GitHub was free software, decentralized, etc, then I could maybe agree that mirroring can be activated by default for existing and new modules. But considering the nature of GitHub, I consider it somewhat rude to mirror a module without letting a maintainer an option to cancel it, or make it disabled by default and allowing the maintainer to switch it on. Who gets the say? What happens if there's two maintainers to a project? What if you've contributed code to GNOME that's under a different repository. What happens if someone manually mirrors your repository under their own name. It's not realistic to have an opt-out button for contributors. It's free software, and that doesn't change whether we put it on a proprietary platform or not. On ה', 2013-08-15 at 13:20 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: hi Luis; thanks for answering. On 15 August 2013 13:00, Luis Menina liberfo...@freeside.fr wrote: Le 15/08/2013 12:44, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : Actually, the fact that we have to ask to opt out is an issue in itself. We shouldn't even have to. This should have been opt in from the start. People (maintainers and commiters in this case) shouldn't have to fight to get back what you have taken away from them. considering that this is a mirroring system of a distributed version control system, I'm puzzled as to what has been lost. you still have all your rights to the software you maintain and commit to, and you still have the right to push your work to more than one repository. care to elaborate a bit more on this? I'm not a maintainer, but it seems to me that a maintainer may want as few entry points for patches as possible, or at least not need to poll to find patches. We already have bugzilla, or git.gnome.org. If extra clones exist and seem officially endorsed by GNOME, and there's no process to send those patches upstream, this clearly means it's up to the maintainer to poll for patches on these extra clones. as I said the last time the idea of a github clone was being floated around, I don't want to look in multiple places for patches. nor I want to get pull requests from mirrors I don't maintain directly — and even then, I basically always say that if a patch is not on Bugzilla, then it doesn't exist. the work that Alberto did, though, seem to be clear that: a) the canonical place for submitting patches is Bugzilla, and b) the GitHub clones are for mirroring only, so that people can easily create a public fork on their own GitHub account when they wish to hack on something. it is, essentially, a
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Allow me to clarify: You're free to use github mirrors, it's your right to do so. But I have the right not to cooperate with this. All Gnome maintainers have this right. If you're going to enable those github mirrors, make sure any maintainer can easily turn off mirroring for their module. On ה', 2013-08-15 at 14:57 +0200, Alberto Ruiz wrote: Hey there, I can't help but notice that your mail provider, mailoo has a twitter account to promote themselves: https://twitter.com/mailoopointorg You should switch your email provider immediatly, as they are promoting a centralized closed source service in their very frontpage! 2013/8/15 fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.org: Hey Jasper, Excellent questions. I suggest module maintainers decide together on each module, and other people can't control the mirroring in their name. You can suggest all that you want, but until the day Or just take the simple solution: Use a free software decentralized git hosting. For example Gitorious or Gitlab. Gitlab seems to have many cool features like Github and it's fully free software you can run on your own server. Does anyone have something against using these, instead of the proprietary centralized alternative GitHub, which happens to be popular? It's not my fault people use GitHub. It certainly doesn't mean I get basic rights taken, just because people don't care enough about the freedom of the software they use. I refuse to endorse Github in any way, on the grounds of it being partially proprietary and centralized. Can anything make more sense than this? Isn't software freedom our basics? On ה', 2013-08-15 at 08:37 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:34 AM, fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.org wrote: No problems, GNOME having read-only mirrors can be useful to people. Just make sure there's an easy way to opt out. For example, I wouldn't want any of my code automatically uploaded to GitHub. I think every maintainer should have the right to cancel mirroring for their module. If GitHub was free software, decentralized, etc, then I could maybe agree that mirroring can be activated by default for existing and new modules. But considering the nature of GitHub, I consider it somewhat rude to mirror a module without letting a maintainer an option to cancel it, or make it disabled by default and allowing the maintainer to switch it on. Who gets the say? What happens if there's two maintainers to a project? What if you've contributed code to GNOME that's under a different repository. What happens if someone manually mirrors your repository under their own name. It's not realistic to have an opt-out button for contributors. It's free software, and that doesn't change whether we put it on a proprietary platform or not. On ה', 2013-08-15 at 13:20 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: hi Luis; thanks for answering. On 15 August 2013 13:00, Luis Menina liberfo...@freeside.fr wrote: Le 15/08/2013 12:44, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : Actually, the fact that we have to ask to opt out is an issue in itself. We shouldn't even have to. This should have been opt in from the start. People (maintainers and commiters in this case) shouldn't have to fight to get back what you have taken away from them. considering that this is a mirroring system of a distributed version control system, I'm puzzled as to what has been lost. you still have all your rights to the software you maintain and commit to, and you still have the right to push your work to more than one repository. care to elaborate a bit more on this? I'm not a maintainer, but it seems to me that a maintainer may want as few entry points for patches as possible, or at least not need to poll to find patches. We already have bugzilla, or git.gnome.org. If extra clones exist and seem officially endorsed by GNOME, and there's no process to send those patches upstream, this clearly means it's up to the maintainer to poll for patches on these extra clones. as I said the last time the idea of a github clone was being floated around, I don't want to look in multiple places for patches. nor I want to get pull requests from mirrors I don't maintain directly — and even then, I basically always say that if
[Fwd: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror]
My other account isn't a member of this list. I'm forwarding the message הודעה מועברת מאת: fr33domlover fr33domlo...@openmailbox.org אל: Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org Cc: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org desktop-devel-list@gnome.org נושא: Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror תאריך: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 16:11:16 +0300 * There you go, I switched. (I assume you'll make a google-search on * openmailbox.org now. Have fun.) * * Your turn. On ה', 2013-08-15 at 14:57 +0200, Alberto Ruiz wrote: Hey there, I can't help but notice that your mail provider, mailoo has a twitter account to promote themselves: https://twitter.com/mailoopointorg You should switch your email provider immediatly, as they are promoting a centralized closed source service in their very frontpage! 2013/8/15 fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.org: Hey Jasper, Excellent questions. I suggest module maintainers decide together on each module, and other people can't control the mirroring in their name. You can suggest all that you want, but until the day Or just take the simple solution: Use a free software decentralized git hosting. For example Gitorious or Gitlab. Gitlab seems to have many cool features like Github and it's fully free software you can run on your own server. Does anyone have something against using these, instead of the proprietary centralized alternative GitHub, which happens to be popular? It's not my fault people use GitHub. It certainly doesn't mean I get basic rights taken, just because people don't care enough about the freedom of the software they use. I refuse to endorse Github in any way, on the grounds of it being partially proprietary and centralized. Can anything make more sense than this? Isn't software freedom our basics? On ה', 2013-08-15 at 08:37 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:34 AM, fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.org wrote: No problems, GNOME having read-only mirrors can be useful to people. Just make sure there's an easy way to opt out. For example, I wouldn't want any of my code automatically uploaded to GitHub. I think every maintainer should have the right to cancel mirroring for their module. If GitHub was free software, decentralized, etc, then I could maybe agree that mirroring can be activated by default for existing and new modules. But considering the nature of GitHub, I consider it somewhat rude to mirror a module without letting a maintainer an option to cancel it, or make it disabled by default and allowing the maintainer to switch it on. Who gets the say? What happens if there's two maintainers to a project? What if you've contributed code to GNOME that's under a different repository. What happens if someone manually mirrors your repository under their own name. It's not realistic to have an opt-out button for contributors. It's free software, and that doesn't change whether we put it on a proprietary platform or not. On ה', 2013-08-15 at 13:20 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: hi Luis; thanks for answering. On 15 August 2013 13:00, Luis Menina liberfo...@freeside.fr wrote: Le 15/08/2013 12:44, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : Actually, the fact that we have to ask to opt out is an issue in itself. We shouldn't even have to. This should have been opt in from the start. People (maintainers and commiters in this case) shouldn't have to fight to get back what you have taken away from them. considering that this is a mirroring system of a distributed version control system, I'm puzzled as to what has been lost. you still have all your rights to the software you maintain and commit to, and you still have the right to push your work to more than one repository. care to elaborate a bit more on this? I'm not a maintainer, but it seems to me that a maintainer may want as few entry points for patches as possible, or at least not need to poll to find patches. We already have bugzilla, or git.gnome.org. If extra clones exist and seem officially endorsed by GNOME, and there's no process to send those patches upstream, this clearly means it's up to the maintainer to poll for patches on these extra clones
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 16:13 +0300, fr33domlover wrote: Allow me to clarify: You're free to use github mirrors, it's your right to do so. But I have the right not to cooperate with this. All Gnome maintainers have this right. If you're going to enable those github mirrors, make sure any maintainer can easily turn off mirroring for their module. why? By releasing your code under a Free license such as the GPL, you are allowing others to take your code, and essentially, do what they want with it. Free licenses by design are made to allow this, and if your app is part of the Gnome project, then Gnome are free to do what they want with it, in this case, to create a *read-only* mirror on GitHub in the intrest of convenience. -- Marco Scannadinari ma...@scannadinari.co.uk ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Le 15/08/2013 14:47, Debarshi Ray a écrit : On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:07:23PM +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: I agree that everyone should be free to pick their fights. I agree that you you are free to pick yours and have them different from mine. Do you agree that mine can be different from yours? And, yet, you use GMail. Could we please stop the witch hunt ? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 16:13 +0300, fr33domlover wrote: You're free to use github mirrors, it's your right to do so. But I have the right not to cooperate with this. All Gnome maintainers have this right. [Citation Needed]. Easy workaround: Just ignore the fact that there is a mirror. Problem solved, all happy. You don't need to corporate. And a big thanks to Alberto who spend his time to make GNOME's codebase available to more people by adding another distribution channel to it. Cheers, andre -- Andre Klapper | ak...@gmx.net http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:40 AM, fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.orgwrote: On ה', 2013-08-15 at 14:29 +, Marco Scannadinari wrote: On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 16:13 +0300, fr33domlover wrote: Allow me to clarify: You're free to use github mirrors, it's your right to do so. But I have the right not to cooperate with this. All Gnome maintainers have this right. If you're going to enable those github mirrors, make sure any maintainer can easily turn off mirroring for their module. why? Because Github is centralized, and partially proprietary. And it has great alternatives like Gitorious and Gitlab, which don't suffer from these problems. Having used both of these tools, they aren't anywhere near what GitHub does. Gitorious is slow, hard to navigate, and tends to spit out error messages when trying to load files from anything other than master. It's also impossible to view any binary file (icons, images) without downloading. GitLab is an attempt at emulating GitHub, but it feels like the standard open-source clone of closed software in that it's years behind and doesn't really have its own design or identity. By releasing your code under a Free license such as the GPL, you are allowing others to take your code, and essentially, do what they want with it. Free licenses by design are made to allow this, and if your app is part of the Gnome project, then Gnome are free to do what they want with it, in this case, to create a *read-only* mirror on GitHub in the intrest of convenience. Software freedom is more important for me than convenience. If you're interested in convenience you can use MS Windows, Dropbox, Facebook, Skype and Github. Stop developing Gnome and just watch TV all day. That's convenience. I feel that some decisions taken in the name of Gnome don't consider software freedom. That's not fair, especially because many people here are volunteers, and some of them volunteer in the name of software freedom, not convenience or profit. I'm curious how this is different than somebody taking your code repository and putting a personal fork of it on GitHub. Is it because GNOME's mirrors are called official, and that you feel that having a presence on any proprietary infrastructure feels detrimental to GNOME's philosophy and mission? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Jasper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, August 15, 2013 9:47 am, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: Is it because GNOME's mirrors are called official, and that you feel that having a presence on any proprietary infrastructure feels detrimental to GNOME's philosophy and mission? I won't comment too much since as Kat says, this will be discussed by the board, but I do feel this way. Saying that it's official implies that the GNOME Foundation recommends it. I think that having official endorsements of proprietary software is detrimental to our mission to support software freedom. karen ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
If someone takes my code and puts it on Github, it's their right to do so. I won't like it, but I won't stop them. It's their freedom. But in this case it's not someone randomly copying my work: It's *direct* mirroring of all my code, directly to Github, in an official manner. If you want the features of Github, copy its code and run your own instance. Using it officially means endorsing it and making it more popular. If you want to endorse it, I won't stop you. But I don't want to be part of this because of the Github issues I mentioned. Convenience is not everything. Some people don't use a smartphone because they want privacy. Or they don't use GMail, for the same reason. In a similar manner, people should be able not to have any formal connection to Github. I'll repeat: You can mirror anything you want to Github, just let module maintainers decide on their modules. Cloning a git repo and uploading to Github is very easy, we both know that. It's not like people can't upload code to Github without the mirrors. On ה', 2013-08-15 at 09:47 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:40 AM, fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.org wrote: On ה', 2013-08-15 at 14:29 +, Marco Scannadinari wrote: On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 16:13 +0300, fr33domlover wrote: Allow me to clarify: You're free to use github mirrors, it's your right to do so. But I have the right not to cooperate with this. All Gnome maintainers have this right. If you're going to enable those github mirrors, make sure any maintainer can easily turn off mirroring for their module. why? Because Github is centralized, and partially proprietary. And it has great alternatives like Gitorious and Gitlab, which don't suffer from these problems. Having used both of these tools, they aren't anywhere near what GitHub does. Gitorious is slow, hard to navigate, and tends to spit out error messages when trying to load files from anything other than master. It's also impossible to view any binary file (icons, images) without downloading. GitLab is an attempt at emulating GitHub, but it feels like the standard open-source clone of closed software in that it's years behind and doesn't really have its own design or identity. By releasing your code under a Free license such as the GPL, you are allowing others to take your code, and essentially, do what they want with it. Free licenses by design are made to allow this, and if your app is part of the Gnome project, then Gnome are free to do what they want with it, in this case, to create a *read-only* mirror on GitHub in the intrest of convenience. Software freedom is more important for me than convenience. If you're interested in convenience you can use MS Windows, Dropbox, Facebook, Skype and Github. Stop developing Gnome and just watch TV all day. That's convenience. I feel that some decisions taken in the name of Gnome don't consider software freedom. That's not fair, especially because many people here are volunteers, and some of them volunteer in the name of software freedom, not convenience or profit. I'm curious how this is different than somebody taking your code repository and putting a personal fork of it on GitHub. Is it because GNOME's mirrors are called official, and that you feel that having a presence on any proprietary infrastructure feels detrimental to GNOME's philosophy and mission? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Jasper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Le 15/08/2013 15:40, fr33domlover a écrit : Software freedom is more important for me than convenience. If you're interested in convenience you can use MS Windows, Dropbox, Facebook, Skype and Github. Stop developing Gnome and just watch TV all day. That's convenience. I feel that some decisions taken in the name of Gnome don't consider software freedom. That's not fair, especially because many people here are volunteers, and some of them volunteer in the name of software freedom, not convenience or profit. Software freedom is a good thing, and like many here, I love it to. You can't say people don't consider freedom here. Yes, Github is proprietary. But someone did the work to interact with it, proprietary or not. This means that if someone stepped up to add mirrors for gitorious or other free services, that would IMHO be accepted as well. Does forcing everyone to use free software is freedom ? I don't think so. But letting users of proprietary software know that we exist, and that we are free software, is part of our job too. I didn't come to Linux or GNOME because it was free software, but that is why I remained faithful to it. So users of non-free software shouldn't bee seen as second-class citizens. We need to find a good compromise between freeness and user outreach. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:56 AM, fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.orgwrote: If someone takes my code and puts it on Github, it's their right to do so. I won't like it, but I won't stop them. It's their freedom. But in this case it's not someone randomly copying my work: It's *direct* mirroring of all my code, directly to Github, in an official manner. So, as I understand it, your issue is the official and endorsed use of proprietary technologies in GNOME. Do you know we have official Twitter, Facebook and Google+ accounts that are updated regularly? Were you at GUADEC 2013? Beside the slides in every presentation was a public wall that displayed all tweets with the hashtag #guadec. It may have been hooked up to Identi.ca or one of the free software clones, but I didn't notice anybody using those. The design of the wall used Twitter's bird logo and theme. If you want the features of Github, copy its code and run your own instance. Using it officially means endorsing it and making it more popular. If you want to endorse it, I won't stop you. But I don't want to be part of this because of the Github issues I mentioned. Convenience is not everything. Some people don't use a smartphone because they want privacy. Or they don't use GMail, for the same reason. In a similar manner, people should be able not to have any formal connection to Github. I am not a member of the board, but I think that we use proprietary software as a way of competition and collaboration. In my opinion, standing in our own little corner of the world and pretending that the rest of the world doesn't exist is not a way to spread our message and get people using free software. Yes, we would prefer if Twitter and Facebook and Google+ and GitHub were all open and free, but our road is a long one, and we're still in the early stages of computing, and we need to make peace and collaborate with proprietary software makers, not war. I'll repeat: You can mirror anything you want to Github, just let module maintainers decide on their modules. Cloning a git repo and uploading to Github is very easy, we both know that. It's not like people can't upload code to Github without the mirrors. On ה', 2013-08-15 at 09:47 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:40 AM, fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.org wrote: On ה', 2013-08-15 at 14:29 +, Marco Scannadinari wrote: On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 16:13 +0300, fr33domlover wrote: Allow me to clarify: You're free to use github mirrors, it's your right to do so. But I have the right not to cooperate with this. All Gnome maintainers have this right. If you're going to enable those github mirrors, make sure any maintainer can easily turn off mirroring for their module. why? Because Github is centralized, and partially proprietary. And it has great alternatives like Gitorious and Gitlab, which don't suffer from these problems. Having used both of these tools, they aren't anywhere near what GitHub does. Gitorious is slow, hard to navigate, and tends to spit out error messages when trying to load files from anything other than master. It's also impossible to view any binary file (icons, images) without downloading. GitLab is an attempt at emulating GitHub, but it feels like the standard open-source clone of closed software in that it's years behind and doesn't really have its own design or identity. By releasing your code under a Free license such as the GPL, you are allowing others to take your code, and essentially, do what they want with it. Free licenses by design are made to allow this, and if your app is part of the Gnome project, then Gnome are free to do what they want with it, in this case, to create a *read-only* mirror on GitHub in the intrest of convenience. Software freedom is more important for me than convenience. If you're interested in convenience you can use MS Windows, Dropbox, Facebook, Skype and Github. Stop developing Gnome and just watch TV all day. That's convenience. I feel that some decisions taken in the name of Gnome don't consider software freedom. That's not fair, especially because many people here are volunteers, and some of them volunteer in the name of software freedom, not convenience or profit. I'm curious how this is different than somebody taking your code repository and putting a personal fork of it on GitHub. Is it because GNOME's mirrors are called official, and that you feel that having
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 11:03 +0200, Alberto Ruiz wrote: There's no intention to support pull requests or to depend in any way in this service, this is just a nice-to-have to serve the GitHub's community and user base. My concern is that with no way to disable pull requests, potential contributors will submit them and get discouraged when they are ignored. This could be very confusing to a potential contributor who finds the code on GitHub and isn't familiar with our development flow. This might outweigh the benefit of putting code on GitHub at all (since we seem to have disabled all GitHub's useful features). I do see pull request merges popping up [1] but I suppose those are handled manually if the GitHub mirror is read-only? [1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-music/log/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On ה', 2013-08-15 at 15:41 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 16:13 +0300, fr33domlover wrote: You're free to use github mirrors, it's your right to do so. But I have the right not to cooperate with this. All Gnome maintainers have this right. [Citation Needed]. Easy workaround: Just ignore the fact that there is a mirror. Problem solved, all happy. You don't need to corporate. It's like a government saying we're starting a war oversees, but you can just ignore it and continue with your life. I can't ignore it. There is not workaround for software freedom. And a big thanks to Alberto who spend his time to make GNOME's codebase available to more people by adding another distribution channel to it. You mean, to make GNOME's codebase available to more people who don't mind using GitHub by adding another proprietary centralized distribution channel to it. Cheers, andre ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Le 15/08/2013 16:08, fr33domlover a écrit : You mean, to make GNOME's codebase available to more people who don't mind using GitHub by adding another proprietary centralized distribution channel to it. You're missing the point: the goal is not to encourage people to go to github to contribute, but encourage people which already are on github to contribute to GNOME. That's not the same thing. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
I agree. Here is the compromise: 1. People who don't mind having their module on Github can turn on mirroring 2. Peope who don't want it, can turn it off 3. People who want to clone a module not mirrored on Github, do it like now: clone a gnome repo, then upload it to Github in a single mouse click and start hacking. Still easy. Eventually, GitHub is supposed to help maintainers track contribution. If they don't want to use this tool (e.g. because it's proprietary), why force them to have it applied on their modules? On ה', 2013-08-15 at 16:01 +0200, Luis Menina wrote: Le 15/08/2013 15:40, fr33domlover a écrit : Software freedom is more important for me than convenience. If you're interested in convenience you can use MS Windows, Dropbox, Facebook, Skype and Github. Stop developing Gnome and just watch TV all day. That's convenience. I feel that some decisions taken in the name of Gnome don't consider software freedom. That's not fair, especially because many people here are volunteers, and some of them volunteer in the name of software freedom, not convenience or profit. Software freedom is a good thing, and like many here, I love it to. You can't say people don't consider freedom here. Yes, Github is proprietary. But someone did the work to interact with it, proprietary or not. This means that if someone stepped up to add mirrors for gitorious or other free services, that would IMHO be accepted as well. Does forcing everyone to use free software is freedom ? I don't think so. But letting users of proprietary software know that we exist, and that we are free software, is part of our job too. I didn't come to Linux or GNOME because it was free software, but that is why I remained faithful to it. So users of non-free software shouldn't bee seen as second-class citizens. We need to find a good compromise between freeness and user outreach. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
This might be harmless if there was a way to disable pull requests, but if we mirror repos on GitHub we have a responsibility to monitor for and accept pull requests, otherwise potential contributors who are unfamiliar with our development flow will be discouraged when their pull requests sit unnoticed. On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 12:26 +0300, אנטולי קרסנר wrote: Hello, GitHub indeed offers many features that Gnome's git web interface doesn't. Yes, but we've disabled them all. I really fail to see the point of GitHub without its killer feature (pull requests); it seems to have no advantages over our current infrastructure. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
2013/8/15 Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 12:26 +0300, אנטולי קרסנר wrote: Hello, GitHub indeed offers many features that Gnome's git web interface doesn't. Yes, but we've disabled them all. I really fail to see the point of GitHub without its killer feature (pull requests); it seems to have no advantages over our current infrastructure. Again, the point of the mirror is to encourage people that are on GitHub to contribute to the GNOME Project, how? By forking a specific repository and then following the usual procedure for having the patch reviewed and eventually accepted. We are not diverging (and we won't diverge) from our development workflow, I agree with you that leaving pull requests open can take in some confusion and we'll be trying to address that by adding the relevant wiki page [1] on the description of each of the repositories hosted on the mirror so that people are aware of that. In an ideal world we should just disable pull requests completely directly on Github, but that would require extra efforts from the Github's guys that did a lot to help us mirroring our source code. -- Cheers, Andrea Debian Developer, Fedora / EPEL packager, GNOME Sysadmin, GNOME Foundation Membership Elections Committee Chairman Homepage: http://www.gnome.org/~av ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Pressed sent too early. [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/Sysadmin/GitHub 2013/8/15 Andrea Veri a...@gnome.org 2013/8/15 Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 12:26 +0300, אנטולי קרסנר wrote: Hello, GitHub indeed offers many features that Gnome's git web interface doesn't. Yes, but we've disabled them all. I really fail to see the point of GitHub without its killer feature (pull requests); it seems to have no advantages over our current infrastructure. Again, the point of the mirror is to encourage people that are on GitHub to contribute to the GNOME Project, how? By forking a specific repository and then following the usual procedure for having the patch reviewed and eventually accepted. We are not diverging (and we won't diverge) from our development workflow, I agree with you that leaving pull requests open can take in some confusion and we'll be trying to address that by adding the relevant wiki page [1] on the description of each of the repositories hosted on the mirror so that people are aware of that. In an ideal world we should just disable pull requests completely directly on Github, but that would require extra efforts from the Github's guys that did a lot to help us mirroring our source code. -- Cheers, Andrea Debian Developer, Fedora / EPEL packager, GNOME Sysadmin, GNOME Foundation Membership Elections Committee Chairman Homepage: http://www.gnome.org/~av -- Cheers, Andrea Debian Developer, Fedora / EPEL packager, GNOME Sysadmin, GNOME Foundation Membership Elections Committee Chairman Homepage: http://www.gnome.org/~av ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 03:38:00PM +0200, Luis Menina wrote: I agree that everyone should be free to pick their fights. I agree that you you are free to pick yours and have them different from mine. Do you agree that mine can be different from yours? And, yet, you use GMail. Could we please stop the witch hunt ? If you are using GMail (a proprietary web application) for your GNOME work, and then turn around and start objecting to the use of GitHub as another / secondary distribution channel for our code, then, yes, I do find it insincere. Running your own email infrastructure is much much more easier than replicating GitHub with free software. If you don't even care about the easy things, then who are you to hold others to even higher standards? Cheers, Debarshi -- Life is like bein' on a mule team. Unless you're the lead mule, all the scenery looks about the same. pgpYNOMuXjbyc.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Le 15/08/2013 16:12, fr33domlover a écrit : Eventually, GitHub is supposed to help maintainers track contribution. If they don't want to use this tool (e.g. because it's proprietary), why force them to have it applied on their modules? The problem for me is more that people may try to contribute to GNOME on Github, and think the maintainer tracks the contributions there. If a maintainer doesn't plan to track things there, he should be able to make it clear on Github. But you can't ask people not to put your code on github. Free software on a closed source infrastructure is still free software. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Le 15/08/2013 16:30, Debarshi Ray a écrit : If you are using GMail (a proprietary web application) for your GNOME work, and then turn around and start objecting to the use of GitHub as another / secondary distribution channel for our code, then, yes, I do find it insincere. Running your own email infrastructure is much much more easier than replicating GitHub with free software. If you don't even care about the easy things, then who are you to hold others to even higher standards? In fact, I'm not the one using GMail, so please look who you're answering to... This 100% free software thing is just a goal. Would you throw a stone to a Linux user which uses Flash ? If you do, he may prefer to run it under Windows, where noone will nag him about it. He has a GMail account, right. Does this mean he loses his rights to disagree on a decision ? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On ה', 2013-08-15 at 16:10 +0200, Luis Menina wrote: Le 15/08/2013 16:08, fr33domlover a écrit : You mean, to make GNOME's codebase available to more people who don't mind using GitHub by adding another proprietary centralized distribution channel to it. You're missing the point: the goal is not to encourage people to go to github to contribute, but encourage people which already are on github to contribute to GNOME. That's not the same thing. Of course, nobody wants to encourage people to use a proprietary service (I hope so, at least). But assume I'm new to Gnome and I want to contribute. It's easier for me to do it through GitHub than through Gitorious, because of the mirrors. So you do encourage the use of GitHub, even if you don't intend to. Maybe GitHub will help more people contribute, but I don't see why it's so important. I prefer to have 3 developers who care, than to have 5 who don't care. If I didn't mind to use GitHub, I could as well not mind using Windows. GitHub is proprietary, just like Windows. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On 13-08-15 07:55 AM, Alexandre Franke wrote: Ok, I probably misphrased that since English is not my native language. What I meant is that my code being mirrored is not something I want to push for, it's not something I consider as needed. That was an explanation for the fact that I won't be contributing to a gitorious mirror. That didn't mean that having the github mirror is a non-issue to me. Good old love/hate sharing complex that comes with GPL thinking... More seriously, if you can't articulate the issue you have with it, please refrain from generating additional work for the sysadmin team. Makes me feel fuzzy in my stomach doesn't can't. My 0.02CAD -- behdad http://behdad.org/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Le 15/08/2013 16:48, fr33domlover a écrit : But assume I'm new to Gnome and I want to contribute. It's easier for me to do it through GitHub than through Gitorious, because of the mirrors. Sure. But if you know GNOME, you also may contribute through bugzilla by sending patches using the GNOME repositories. This has not changed. We're adding freedom of choice here, not removing any. So you do encourage the use of GitHub, even if you don't intend to. It's indirectly encouraging github over gitorious or gitlab, because one has to come first, and that Github has more users. This doesn't mean that gitlab mirrors nor gitorious are forbidden. GNOME has always been a do-ocracy. The one who does the work has the final word, so I'm pretty sure anyone wanting to help mirror on gitlab or gitorious is welcome. Gitlab and gitorious people who strive to keep using only free software are still able to contribute using a GNOME account, bugzilla and the GNOME repositories. Nothing changes for them. Please keep in mind that here only *more* choices are given to people, not *less*. That's all about sharing. Maybe GitHub will help more people contribute, but I don't see why it's so important. I prefer to have 3 developers who care, than to have 5 who don't care. If I didn't mind to use GitHub, I could as well not mind using Windows. GitHub is proprietary, just like Windows. Do you dismiss a Linux user that uses Skype ? Would you prefer a Windows user that uses Firefox ? For me they are both free software users, event if not using 100% free software. I personally prefer that people use what they want. They should be able to decide if free software is a good thing for them. Free software is good, but it should be praised for being better than the competition *and* free, not just for being free. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On ה', 2013-08-15 at 17:07 +0200, Luis Menina wrote: Le 15/08/2013 16:48, fr33domlover a écrit : But assume I'm new to Gnome and I want to contribute. It's easier for me to do it through GitHub than through Gitorious, because of the mirrors. Sure. But if you know GNOME, you also may contribute through bugzilla by sending patches using the GNOME repositories. This has not changed. We're adding freedom of choice here, not removing any. Of course. But since only *one* service is being supported, specifically the proprietary GitHub, I suggest the decision is considered seriously before it's made. We're not adding several git hosting services, just a specific one, and it's centralized. So you do encourage the use of GitHub, even if you don't intend to. It's indirectly encouraging github over gitorious or gitlab, because one has to come first, and that Github has more users. This doesn't mean that gitlab mirrors nor gitorious are forbidden. GNOME has always been a do-ocracy. The one who does the work has the final word, so I'm pretty sure anyone wanting to help mirror on gitlab or gitorious is welcome. Gitlab and gitorious people who strive to keep using only free software are still able to contribute using a GNOME account, bugzilla and the GNOME repositories. Nothing changes for them. Please keep in mind that here only *more* choices are given to people, not *less*. That's all about sharing. Maybe GitHub will help more people contribute, but I don't see why it's so important. I prefer to have 3 developers who care, than to have 5 who don't care. If I didn't mind to use GitHub, I could as well not mind using Windows. GitHub is proprietary, just like Windows. Do you dismiss a Linux user that uses Skype ? Would you prefer a Windows user that uses Firefox ? For me they are both free software users, event if not using 100% free software. I personally prefer that people use what they want. They should be able to decide if free software is a good thing for them. Free software is good, but it should be praised for being better than the competition *and* free, not just for being free. I don't dismiss anyone. I just examine things from the point-of-view of a developer who believes in software freedom, and hopes other developers here believe in it too. Because of the importance of freedom, not because it saves money. I agree people should decide what they think about free software. That's why it's important official GitHub mirroring is not done without giving maintainers a unique switch for their module, to control whether it's mirrored or not. Free software doesn't have to be better than the competition: Libreoffice lacks some MS Office features, and still many people use it. Same for many other projects. Personally, I use free software that crashes, instead of a proprietary alternative, just because it's free software. Software freedom is important to me, very much. That's why I ask one little thing: If you want to make the GitHub mirroring official for the Gnome project's modules, allow maintainers to turn it on/off easily. That's all. If people as why some modules turn it off, you can say GitHub is proprietary after all, in contradiction to our goals of spreading software freedom and they'll understand. Is it a legitimate request to have such a switch for maintainers? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 16:27 +0200, Andrea Veri wrote: We are not diverging (and we won't diverge) from our development workflow, I agree with you that leaving pull requests open can take in some confusion and we'll be trying to address that by adding the relevant wiki page [1] on the description of each of the repositories hosted on the mirror so that people are aware of that. As GitHub extracts and renders the README file below the repository file browser, such information could be easily exposed on GitHub. On a general note, GNOME is not the first FLOSS project discussing a GitHub mirror, so there might be evaluations out there already. I know I'm a few hours and dozens of emails too late, anyway: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/Gerrit_evaluation#GitHub https://blog.mozilla.org/labs/2010/08/contribute-to-labs-projects-on-github/ andre -- Andre Klapper | ak...@gmx.net http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Many large projects use Gitorious successfully. I have just small repos there, so I don't feel any serious weaknesses, but some large projects (you can find a list on their website) do use it. I'm sure Gnome users can do it too. On ה', 2013-08-15 at 09:47 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:40 AM, fr33domlover fr33domlo...@mailoo.org wrote: On ה', 2013-08-15 at 14:29 +, Marco Scannadinari wrote: On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 16:13 +0300, fr33domlover wrote: Allow me to clarify: You're free to use github mirrors, it's your right to do so. But I have the right not to cooperate with this. All Gnome maintainers have this right. If you're going to enable those github mirrors, make sure any maintainer can easily turn off mirroring for their module. why? Because Github is centralized, and partially proprietary. And it has great alternatives like Gitorious and Gitlab, which don't suffer from these problems. Having used both of these tools, they aren't anywhere near what GitHub does. Gitorious is slow, hard to navigate, and tends to spit out error messages when trying to load files from anything other than master. It's also impossible to view any binary file (icons, images) without downloading. GitLab is an attempt at emulating GitHub, but it feels like the standard open-source clone of closed software in that it's years behind and doesn't really have its own design or identity. By releasing your code under a Free license such as the GPL, you are allowing others to take your code, and essentially, do what they want with it. Free licenses by design are made to allow this, and if your app is part of the Gnome project, then Gnome are free to do what they want with it, in this case, to create a *read-only* mirror on GitHub in the intrest of convenience. Software freedom is more important for me than convenience. If you're interested in convenience you can use MS Windows, Dropbox, Facebook, Skype and Github. Stop developing Gnome and just watch TV all day. That's convenience. I feel that some decisions taken in the name of Gnome don't consider software freedom. That's not fair, especially because many people here are volunteers, and some of them volunteer in the name of software freedom, not convenience or profit. I'm curious how this is different than somebody taking your code repository and putting a personal fork of it on GitHub. Is it because GNOME's mirrors are called official, and that you feel that having a presence on any proprietary infrastructure feels detrimental to GNOME's philosophy and mission? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Jasper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On 15/08/13 09:56 AM, fr33domlover wrote: If someone takes my code and puts it on Github, it's their right to do so. I won't like it, but I won't stop them. It's their freedom. But in this case it's not someone randomly copying my work: It's *direct* mirroring of all my code, directly to Github, in an official manner. I'm having a hard time following. Which modules do you maintain? Just so that we know the context. I couldn't figure it out myself. Hub ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Le 15/08/2013 17:21, fr33domlover a écrit : On ה', 2013-08-15 at 17:07 +0200, Luis Menina wrote: Le 15/08/2013 16:48, fr33domlover a écrit : But assume I'm new to Gnome and I want to contribute. It's easier for me to do it through GitHub than through Gitorious, because of the mirrors. Sure. But if you know GNOME, you also may contribute through bugzilla by sending patches using the GNOME repositories. This has not changed. We're adding freedom of choice here, not removing any. Of course. But since only *one* service is being supported, specifically the proprietary GitHub, I suggest the decision is considered seriously before it's made. We're not adding several git hosting services, just a specific one, and it's centralized. So you do encourage the use of GitHub, even if you don't intend to. It's indirectly encouraging github over gitorious or gitlab, because one has to come first, and that Github has more users. This doesn't mean that gitlab mirrors nor gitorious are forbidden. GNOME has always been a do-ocracy. The one who does the work has the final word, so I'm pretty sure anyone wanting to help mirror on gitlab or gitorious is welcome. Gitlab and gitorious people who strive to keep using only free software are still able to contribute using a GNOME account, bugzilla and the GNOME repositories. Nothing changes for them. Please keep in mind that here only *more* choices are given to people, not *less*. That's all about sharing. Maybe GitHub will help more people contribute, but I don't see why it's so important. I prefer to have 3 developers who care, than to have 5 who don't care. If I didn't mind to use GitHub, I could as well not mind using Windows. GitHub is proprietary, just like Windows. Do you dismiss a Linux user that uses Skype ? Would you prefer a Windows user that uses Firefox ? For me they are both free software users, event if not using 100% free software. I personally prefer that people use what they want. They should be able to decide if free software is a good thing for them. Free software is good, but it should be praised for being better than the competition *and* free, not just for being free. I don't dismiss anyone. I just examine things from the point-of-view of a developer who believes in software freedom, and hopes other developers here believe in it too. Because of the importance of freedom, not because it saves money. I agree people should decide what they think about free software. That's why it's important official GitHub mirroring is not done without giving maintainers a unique switch for their module, to control whether it's mirrored or not. Free software doesn't have to be better than the competition: Libreoffice lacks some MS Office features, and still many people use it. Same for many other projects. Personally, I use free software that crashes, instead of a proprietary alternative, just because it's free software. Software freedom is important to me, very much. That's why I ask one little thing: If you want to make the GitHub mirroring official for the Gnome project's modules, allow maintainers to turn it on/off easily. That's all. If people as why some modules turn it off, you can say GitHub is proprietary after all, in contradiction to our goals of spreading software freedom and they'll understand. Is it a legitimate request to have such a switch for maintainers? If you're producing free software, you don't control where it ends. If you use a licence that forbids some uses (nuclear plants, weapons), then it's not free software anymore. The same applies here. Your code could end up on github anyway (or even already is), and you would have no mean to prevent this, because that's how free software works. So why use so much stop energy for that? Better work on having mirrors on gitorious and gitlab too. The turning on/off should IMHO be about each maintainer being allowed to enable/disable pull requests. When disabled, we should make it clear for contributors on the clones that the maintainer won't care about looking at the contributions there, and point them out to bugzilla and the GNOME repositories. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
Hey, 2013/8/15 Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se: If you are using GMail (a proprietary web application) for your GNOME work, and then turn around and start objecting to the use of GitHub as another / secondary distribution channel for our code, then, yes, I do find it insincere. Running your own email infrastructure is much much more easier than replicating GitHub with free software. If you don't even care about the easy things, then who are you to hold others to even higher standards? In my opinion, there's a big difference between someone's personal use of a non-free service, and GNOME as an entity (which is supposed to develop and promote free software) promoting a non-free service. This is what the GNOME's official GitHub mirror tagline makes it sound like. Christophe PS: Yes, I'm sending this from a GMail account, no I don't think this is good, and if you ask me I'm not going to recommend using Google services. I'm also slowly moving off from GMail. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
