From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Git mirrors Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:09:31 +0900 Message-ID: <87mxd5pjec.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <8762k095n4.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871uuksdxi.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83lissxj9a.fsf@gnu.org> <87k48by7ex.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87r52jfbrw.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87k48bf1q9.fsf@wanadoo.es> <871uuh25ef.fsf@ktravel.red-bean.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1318482585 6981 80.91.229.12 (13 Oct 2011 05:09:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 05:09:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar?= Fuentes , John Wiegley , schwab@linux-m68k.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Karl Fogel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 13 07:09:40 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1REDY4-0003Pg-0u for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:09:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48244 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1REDY3-0003jO-6H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:09:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44430) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1REDXz-0003jI-CT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:09:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1REDXx-0007EV-VW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:09:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:41858) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1REDXx-0007EL-F2; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:09:33 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6819707AB; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:09:31 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 488DE1A2739; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:09:31 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <871uuh25ef.fsf@ktravel.red-bean.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0a1 under 21.5 (beta31) "ginger" 6c76f5b7e2e3 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:145101 Archived-At: Karl Fogel writes: > (Sorry, no, I'm not going to spend time digging up the references unless > there's a serious chance that doing so will cause GNU Emacs development > to switch to Git or some other system that the majority of this group > actually prefers.) Realistically, there won't be any such majority. Bazaar today is perhaps the best dVCS for supporting the traditional Emacs workflow, and people who want to evolve their own workflows can use either non- default or experimental bzr plugins, or $dVCS mirrors with levels of effort that are hardly prohibitive. > The idea that we are helping either ourselves or a fellow GNU project > here should be treated as merely a hypothesis until there is actual > evidence of it. Sorry, Karl, although as a social scientist *I* agree with you, *GNU* is a social movement. Action *should* be taken, and Richard has decided that he is sure enough of this effect that he has instituted the "Prefer GNU over non-GNU" policy. You really can't use "treat as an hypothesis until proof is available" here; this is a "you bet your movement" decision, and "deciding not to decide" is a negative decision because it means inaction. I really think the Bazaar case should get a post-mortem review, though. Comparing "What it means for a program to be a GNU package" in with the actual behavior of the Bazaar project (which should not be confused with the aspirations of some of its developers) and its parent corporation is discouraging. Pretty much every point in "evaluation.html" is violated (admittedly mostly in petty ways) by the Bazaar project, starting with licensing (use of GPL v2 and an allegedly obnoxious contributor agreement). Although the software is free, in practice the Bazaar project is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a corporation that has used proprietary software or ASP/SaaS based on undistributed software on a large scale in its products (eg, Launchpad itself, proprietary at its launch but since freed, I believe). If the "Use GNU" policy is to make sense, I think the criterion proposed by Vijay Lakshminarayanan should be applied: The reason to support GNU projects over others is that it is the stated goal of GNU that all distributed software should be Free .... To this end, any software project that shares the same goals will be supported. (Note: the omitted text was "and copylefted by law", which AFAIK is a non-goal. Use of copyleft is a means to the goal of software freedom, and will be impossible when copyright in software is abolished, which AFAIK still is a particular goal in support of software freedom.) I don't think that Bazaar fits Vijay's description well at all. It is a commercial enterprise in support of the Launchpad product and Canonical's consulting business first and foremost, and software freedom hardly ever enters the discussion -- rather it is quite taken for granted. Support for proprietary platforms is an explicit goal of the project. In general, the project ethos seems to be closer to open source than to free software to me. Quite a contrast to the GNU Arch project (which although a GNU package since 2003 and quite usable even then, was never seriously considered for the kind of preference Bazaar got)! I don't think either the GNU package status of Bazaar or Emacs's use of it should be changed. Rather, based on what I've seen so far I think that it would be wise if (1) the GNU Project required a bit more evidence of devotion to software freedom and to GNU than merely adding the GNU brand to the home page and occasionally substituting "GNU/Linux" for "Linux" in documentation before granting "GNU package" status, (2) Bazaar (in particular) were encouraged to devote on-going effort to working for software freedom (as opposed to running a business based on free software), (3) the GNU Project would devote more effort to getting all projects to do the same, (4) Emacs (as a flagship GNU project) would exercise leadership in the above. Thus the suggestion for a review of this case. Of course, since I actively disagree with the policy in the first place, I'm not going to do any of the above myself. I'm just suggesting a path to improvements in the implementation of a policy based on my understanding of the goals of its proponents. ;-) Nobody-expects-the-Loyal-Opposition-ly y'rs,