Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
> > > Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please >> don't speak for all of us. > > > I think it's somewhat split, but sort of having everyone in the foundation > state their stance on it, I don't know how 'many' could be defined. > The elected members of the Board of Directors would arguably position to state GNOME's "official" stance one way or the other (since we have obviously chosen them to represent us). I don't think any of us ordinary members are in a position to do that though. Not without having done any research anyway. Anecdotal evidence can often be fairly misleading. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
> > It’s frankly pretty difficult for me at least to distinguish between > Richard-speaking-as-Richard-alone and Richard-speaking-as-the-FSF, and he > never makes the distinction himself. Does he hold some viewpoint that the > FSF does not, or vice versa? That would actually be news to me. > Personally, I am not all that interested in how he views himself or him in general, but I am interested in what he has been saying in this case. Am I now in a situation where I feel it necessary to urge members not to objectify Richard Stallman? I hope not. Being objectified is not something I would not wish on my worst enemy. :D Maybe he could clarify whether his nominating me as an “enemy of the free > software movement” at Software Freedom Day in 2009 was his personal > position or the FSF’s; I’d been assuming the latter, and as I say, he never > makes a clear distinction himself. > That really is beyond the scope of this discussion. As far as “taking things seriously”, it becomes a little difficult when > we’re being asked to also take things like the necessity of recognizing the > "original designers” — some of them, anyway — of the "GNU/Linux” system, or > the notion that the best piece of software to do a given job is the > “free-est” one as opposed to the “most usable” one “seriously” as well. > This what I was driving at when I said that people are seeing everything they might disagree with about the FSF (or perhaps even Richard too, for that matter) when Richard presented his case about this. You have kind of demonstrated my point. :-). When we are not willing make a distinction between what a person says and does in one case and what they say and do in another it's easy to put people on pedestals or likewise demonetize them such that you get into a situation where you determine a person or a group of people as completely "good" or completely "bad". That is the kind of thinking that leads to avoidable conflicts. In the extreme cases it can even lead to wars. I cannot speak for everyone but I like to think that most of us here have one thing in common: that most of we love free software. Only love is able to overcome all the myriad differences between human beings. Likewise, hate breeds hate. Does anyone here actually hate free software? I seriously hope not and I seriously doubt it is true, too. If neither the FSF is willing to show willing to make compromises so we can get along then of course a conflict is inevitable, but I don't see that happening here. I see Richard as the one doing all the work and so far we seem like the ones who are showing an unwillingness to cooperate with him. Some have suggested maybe GNOME and the FSF do not share common aims, but I cannot see how this would be possible when it is clear that we do from the licences we use on our software and the fact we brand ourselves as a free software project. Am I really the only person who can see that it is a tragedy for us to let preconceptions divide GNOME and the FSF, over something as stupidly simple to resolve, as this? Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
On Jan 9, 2015, at 8:33 PM, Mathieu Duponchelle wrote: > > Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please don't > speak for all of us. However you define “many”, it doesn’t mean “all”, Mathieu, so don’t speak for — or over — those of us who aren’t in line with Richard’s take on “ethics”. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
On Jan 10, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Magdalen Berns wrote: > > Perhaps some might be seeing Richard as the FSF too quickly and not giving > due regard what he is actually saying about this in the reactions to what > he's putting forward. How he's defined "dodgy links" really does not seem all > that unreasonable or idealistic, because it takes into account the important > point that some members of the community might be excluded unless they > sacrifice their principles. I don't think it's necessary to agree with *all* > the ethics of the FSF to concede that this is a fair concern for Richard to > be putting forward for discussion. > > It seems strange (at best) that anyone would see it as nonconstructive for us > to actively seek to ensure we have a strong cooperative relationship with the > FSF community, where this is possible. Given that we are branded as a free > desktop software community, this seems like something we ought to be taking > more seriously. It’s frankly pretty difficult for me at least to distinguish between Richard-speaking-as-Richard-alone and Richard-speaking-as-the-FSF, and he never makes the distinction himself. Does he hold some viewpoint that the FSF does not, or vice versa? That would actually be news to me. Maybe he could clarify whether his nominating me as an “enemy of the free software movement” at Software Freedom Day in 2009 was his personal position or the FSF’s; I’d been assuming the latter, and as I say, he never makes a clear distinction himself. As far as “taking things seriously”, it becomes a little difficult when we’re being asked to also take things like the necessity of recognizing the "original designers” — some of them, anyway — of the "GNU/Linux” system, or the notion that the best piece of software to do a given job is the “free-est” one as opposed to the “most usable” one “seriously” as well. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
> > > Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please >> don't speak for all of us. > > > I think it's somewhat split, but sort of having everyone in the foundation > state their stance on it, I don't know how 'many' could be defined. > There are people who are in a position to state the stance of the whole community and they are the elected members of the Board of Directors. I don't think anyone can presume to know what portion of the community might agree with your estimations (or not), at this stage. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Magdalen Berns wrote: > >> Perhaps some might be seeing Richard as the FSF too quickly and not > giving due regard what he is actually saying about this in the reactions to > what he's putting forward. How he's defined "dodgy links" really does not > seem all that unreasonable or idealistic, because it takes into account the > important point that some members of the community might be excluded unless > they sacrifice their principles. I don't think it's necessary to agree with > *all* the ethics of the FSF to concede that this is a fair concern for > Richard to be putting forward for discussion. > > It seems strange (at best) that anyone would see it as nonconstructive for > us to actively seek to ensure we have a strong cooperative relationship > with the FSF community, where this is possible. Given that we are branded > as a free desktop software community, this seems like something we ought to > be taking more seriously. > My point is merely that my general impression is that the people who have disagreed during this discussion understand the nuances of what is being discussed. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
> > Generally I think that the people who are not on board understand what is > being discussed and simply disagree with certain aspects of it. I know that > is the case with me. I contribute to FOSS, etc, but I do not always share > the same ethics as the FSF. My impression is that that is common. We could > have a discussion about it, but I don't know that having such a discussion > via an email list would be constructive. > Perhaps some might be seeing Richard as the FSF too quickly and not giving due regard what he is actually saying about this in the reactions to what he's putting forward. How he's defined "dodgy links" really does not seem all that unreasonable or idealistic, because it takes into account the important point that some members of the community might be excluded unless they sacrifice their principles. I don't think it's necessary to agree with *all* the ethics of the FSF to concede that this is a fair concern for Richard to be putting forward for discussion. It seems strange (at best) that anyone would see it as nonconstructive for us to actively seek to ensure we have a strong cooperative relationship with the FSF community, where this is possible. Given that we are branded as a free desktop software community, this seems like something we ought to be taking more seriously. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Mathieu Duponchelle < mduponchel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please > don't speak for all of us. I think it's somewhat split, but sort of having everyone in the foundation state their stance on it, I don't know how 'many' could be defined. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please don't speak for all of us. On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Nimit Shah wrote: > Hi Magdalen, > I agree with Meg. Many of us don't share the same ethics as FSF and that > is the reason why we don't have much to contribute to over here. > > Nimit Shah > > On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:44 AM, meg ford wrote: > >> Hi Magdalen, >> >> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Magdalen Berns >> wrote: >> >>> This makes perfect sense to me. At the moment I am not totally convinced >>> that the rest of the community are on board with what you have said though. >>> It is not clear whether or not people understand the nuances of how you are >>> defining things or whether there may even be so fundamental >>> "political"/"ethical" differences of agreement (or some mix of both). It >>> would be useful to have some more clarity on that so we all know whether >>> any of this is actionable at this stage, I think. >> >> >> Generally I think that the people who are not on board understand what is >> being discussed and simply disagree with certain aspects of it. I know that >> is the case with me. I contribute to FOSS, etc, but I do not always share >> the same ethics as the FSF. My impression is that that is common. We could >> have a discussion about it, but I don't know that having such a discussion >> via an email list would be constructive. >> >> Cheers, >> Meg >> >> >> >> ___ >> foundation-list mailing list >> foundation-list@gnome.org >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list >> >> > > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
Hi Magdalen, I agree with Meg. Many of us don't share the same ethics as FSF and that is the reason why we don't have much to contribute to over here. Nimit Shah On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:44 AM, meg ford wrote: > Hi Magdalen, > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Magdalen Berns > wrote: > >> This makes perfect sense to me. At the moment I am not totally convinced >> that the rest of the community are on board with what you have said though. >> It is not clear whether or not people understand the nuances of how you are >> defining things or whether there may even be so fundamental >> "political"/"ethical" differences of agreement (or some mix of both). It >> would be useful to have some more clarity on that so we all know whether >> any of this is actionable at this stage, I think. > > > Generally I think that the people who are not on board understand what is > being discussed and simply disagree with certain aspects of it. I know that > is the case with me. I contribute to FOSS, etc, but I do not always share > the same ethics as the FSF. My impression is that that is common. We could > have a discussion about it, but I don't know that having such a discussion > via an email list would be constructive. > > Cheers, > Meg > > > > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
Hi Magdalen, On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Magdalen Berns wrote: > This makes perfect sense to me. At the moment I am not totally convinced > that the rest of the community are on board with what you have said though. > It is not clear whether or not people understand the nuances of how you are > defining things or whether there may even be so fundamental > "political"/"ethical" differences of agreement (or some mix of both). It > would be useful to have some more clarity on that so we all know whether > any of this is actionable at this stage, I think. Generally I think that the people who are not on board understand what is being discussed and simply disagree with certain aspects of it. I know that is the case with me. I contribute to FOSS, etc, but I do not always share the same ethics as the FSF. My impression is that that is common. We could have a discussion about it, but I don't know that having such a discussion via an email list would be constructive. Cheers, Meg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
Hi, At this stage, I regretfully have urge anyone who would preference lashing out on twitter with their frustrations about the existence of this thread, to consider engaging in a reasoned way on this dedicated thread about their concerns. Whist throwing bigotry at me may seem like the easiest way to end this discussion without fuss, it is not so. I tried to view a page on Facebook, which is a posting about a > political issue. I used wget as usual, and all I got was something > telling me to log in first. > > Meanwhile, you reported > > > It seems can actually technically view the page without being logged in > > which is a good thing, but it seems that this is only possible when the > > offending javascript is not being blocked. > > which is consistent with what I observed. Thanks for confirming. > I think the proper rule is that a link to a page on Facebook is ok > provided it can be viewed without running nonfree JS code and without > logging in. > Indeed, I would suggest that as the basic condition for acceptable > links to any site. If the purpose of the link is to suggest people > look at the contents of the page, then the link is ok provided people > can see the contents without identifying themselves and without > running nonfree software. > This makes perfect sense to me. At the moment I am not totally convinced that the rest of the community are on board with what you have said though. It is not clear whether or not people understand the nuances of how you are defining things or whether there may even be so fundamental "political"/"ethical" differences of agreement (or some mix of both). It would be useful to have some more clarity on that so we all know whether any of this is actionable at this stage, I think. In the special cases where the purpose of the link is something else > (such as to donate), then it needs to be judged according to that > purpose. One reason I suggested we change the subject onto links in general is because I had not expected you to be so willing to concede it would be possible to find a compromise about builder. I am delighted you have been able to prove me wrong about that. I have found a simple way to publish an indiGoGo for builder on the GNOME website as an iframe. I am not sure if that is what they want but I sent some code so that it could be added to the wordpress. indiGoGo don't seem to have an API on offer so the total can be queried and updated on a banner easily another method so I am hoping this way would be just as well.[1] What do you think? Magdalen [1] https://support.indiegogo.com/hc/en-us/articles/527366-How-to-Add-a-Widget-to-your-Blog ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
I tried to view a page on Facebook, which is a posting about a political issue. I used wget as usual, and all I got was something telling me to log in first. Meanwhile, you reported > It seems can actually technically view the page without being logged in > which is a good thing, but it seems that this is only possible when the > offending javascript is not being blocked. which is consistent with what I observed. I think the proper rule is that a link to a page on Facebook is ok provided it can be viewed without running nonfree JS code and without logging in. Indeed, I would suggest that as the basic condition for acceptable links to any site. If the purpose of the link is to suggest people look at the contents of the page, then the link is ok provided people can see the contents without identifying themselves and without running nonfree software. In the special cases where the purpose of the link is something else (such as to donate), then it needs to be judged according to that purpose. -- 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. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
Hi Richard, > > I believe it is possible to view many Facebook pages without running > JS. (I am about to verify that.) According to the libreJS plugin you pointed us to earlier on in the discussion, all javascript that facebook tries to run, is offending. When LibreJS blocks the scripts it reports as being non-free, the page doesn't seem to work (not on my browser anyway). I would prefer to defer to your knowledge on this when it comes to the testing this thing out though, so please let us know what you find out. > So if it is just a matter of > referring to the contents of some page there, that is not a problem, > as long as viewing the page does not require login. > > We shouldn't encourage people to log in on Facebook. > It seems can actually technically view the page without being logged in which is a good thing, but it seems that this is only possible when the offending javascript is not being blocked. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
[[[ 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. ]]] > Some others have mentioned social networking site links e.g. facebook et > al. I believe it is possible to view many Facebook pages without running JS. (I am about to verify that.) So if it is just a matter of referring to the contents of some page there, that is not a problem, as long as viewing the page does not require login. We shouldn't encourage people to log in on Facebook. -- 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. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Links that recommend running nonfree JS code.
I think you have defined it well. > I would expect that these potential problem cases occur rarely. > Can you recall any others besides this one? > Some others have mentioned social networking site links e.g. facebook et al. Though I am not sure this would apply to all of the ones listed because some of these services might work just as well if any "offending" software were blocked in the browser (if you look at the bottom left of http://www.gnome.org/ you'll see the icons for these social links, to find out what they are). I think that Facebook at least, pretty much does not work for much of anything unless you allow dodgy scripts on the browser. Maybe there are ways around that but I am not sure, to be honest. I am quite interested to find out what you make of these ones in relation to this question in general, actually. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
