From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Sigurdsen Subject: Re: An April 1 joke? Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add systemd. Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:59:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20180404185923.45c3595c@merlin.browniehive.net> References: <1522856032.3197.77.camel@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40033) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3ll5-0002mp-K9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 12:59:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3ll0-0005ZE-PB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 12:59:39 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-x229.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c0c::229]:33255) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3ll0-0005Xs-I1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 12:59:34 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-x229.google.com with SMTP id z73so23849753wrb.0 for ; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 09:59:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1522856032.3197.77.camel@gmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Svante Signell Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" 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 wrote: > Sorry, I'm not subscribed to this list. Hopefully this reply comes in > correct thread order.=20 >=20 > > Hi, > > =20 > > > And the same happens again: He does not condemn systemd, calling it F= ree > > > Software due to the GPL license. In my opinion systemd is violating o= ne > > > of the 4 > > > freeedoms of GPL: Freedom 1 (as well as the *NIX and KISS philosophy) > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0* The freedom to study how t= he program works, and change it so it > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0does your comput= ing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the > > >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0source code is a= precondition for this. =20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Freedom 1 gives you the right to change the software for yourself, but > > not the right to force others to change their version. =20 >=20 > What made you think of that? I've not said anything about "forcing others= to > change their version" >=20 > > > 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 =20 > > 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). = =20 > > >=C2=A0 =20 > >=20 > > Do you mean software, where the users can dictate the author what should > > be changed/made in its software? =20 >=20 > 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). >=20 >=20