Re: An April 1 joke? Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add systemd.

[Thomas Sigurdsen <thomas.sigurdsen@gmail.com>]

I have to say I also thought you maybe implied what Martin wrote.

I think you have some assumptions that I don't understand or have; There
definitely looks like some misunderstanding is afoot here.

Technically I find systemd to be abhorent, but I don't see how it violates
the four freedoms. Please enlighten me if they do.

I also wonder what is wrong with the four freedoms?

I mean, I think what I understand Ludovic is intending when he says GuixSD is
the emacs of operating systems is very important (the ease of exercising the
four freedoms); less we end up with docker in vagrant in docker in vagrant in
docker ontop of hardware to be able to run a web browser. But if people want
to develop and use those kinds of systems I don't see a problem with free
software. I see a bunch of other problems, but I have guixsd and don't care
to much what everyone chooses (though I'll tell them how wonderful my/our
system is).

On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:33:52 +0200
Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, I'm not subscribed to this list. Hopefully this reply comes in
> correct thread order. 
> 
> > Hi,
> >   
> > > And the same happens again: He does not condemn systemd, calling it Free
> > > Software due to the GPL license. In my opinion systemd is violating one
> > > of the 4
> > > freeedoms of GPL: Freedom 1 (as well as the *NIX and KISS philosophy)
> > >       * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it
> > >         does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the
> > >         source code is a precondition for this.  
> > 
> > 
> > Freedom 1 gives you the right to change the software for yourself, but
> > not the right to force others to change their version.  
> 
> What made you think of that? I've not said anything about "forcing others to
> change their version"
> 
> > > It's really time for a re-definition of Free Software, not only basing
> > > such definitions solely on the license at hand. It is also a matter of
> > > freedoms  
> > of the users of software. Especially in view of that most Free Software
> > nowadays is developed by commercial players, having their own agenda,
> > actively alienating their users (and non-paid, spare time developers).  
> > >   
> > 
> > Do you mean software, where the users can dictate the author what should
> > be changed/made in its software?  
> 
> Again, I don't understand you. Never heard about software where the users
> have any say in what's being developed except when they pay for it. And as
> you know money rules. But one fact is that corporations hiring people to
> develop software are doing that for a purpose (and they all have their own
> agenda).
> 
>