Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[Jean Louis]

* Alexander Vdolainen <alex@vapaa.xyz> [2019-10-09 23:13]:

> I'm nobody (yep, I'm using GNU Guile, GNU Emacs and GUIX and a lot
> of other GNU projects (make, gcc, binutils etc ...), but I'm not a
> great contributor yet). However those events are going to look like
> a decision point to move on from GNU community sw.

I feel disgusted by Ludovic Courtès not for reasons of him having an
opinion, but for reason that he is using GNU platform to bring hatred
into GNU community. Would he be using facts, I would not be that much
upsate. Would he answer on my questions to provide me facts, I would
not be that upset.

He did answered to me, he said the fact is that RMS used abort() joke.

So one joke for which he has no sense of humor is just enough to say
how RMS has undermined core values of GNU project "over years".

Ludovic Courtès is hypocrat that is using GNU platform to destroy both
Guix and GNU project. He is probably unaware of that, as good behavior
is something one gets from parents. He does not know what is he
doing. That is why the FSF need to have policy makers and policy
enforcers to remove such hatred from GNU Project website (Guix).

> > to oppose free software, and there are numerous facts of his good
> > deeds for free software, for haven's sake he is the founder of the
> > GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation, such wishy-washy
> > statements have no place on GNU.ORG domain.

> Agreed. And again it all looks like a personal war.

I would be immature to accuse RMS, but anybody, without verifying the
facts and without trying to speak to that person first. Isn't that
most humane and friendly?

Most of all, I would not accuse anybody of thoughtcrime, for their
free speech and opinions. If somebody has bad sense of humor, I will
simply not laugh. Not so for Ludovic Courtès, he finds simple joke
good reason enough to bash on RMS who provided him webspace, domain,
platform, and community, and whole organization and funding through
the FSF. Unbelievable.

And he has not a slightest sense of integrity to recognize what harm
is he doing to RMS and GNU and Guix and the FSF and the community.

There are if not thousands of comments on Ludovic Courtès disgraceful
statement on Internet, but none of them have been re-published or
allowed on Guix pages. They are just biased. They openly said in the
Guix IRC log that they will not allow any comments on their
statements.

What RMS shall do, in my opinion, and I am not RMS, he shall enforce
policies and remove such from Guix projects, or let the Guix project
be hosted elsewhere outside of GNU.ORG domain and website. But he is I
guess waaaay to kind for something like that to happen, and from FSF I
never found public information that they are enforcing some good
behavior guideliness.

That is harassment, can harassment of RMS stop?

Can generalizations stop?

Can those rumors stop? Why they need to be spread on GNU.ORG website?

 > Thus I am proposing to FSF, and any reader of this message to kindly
> > ask those people to either provide facts, or to retract their
> > statements from Guix and GNU pages.
> How can I help with that ?

Write to those people who signed the disgraceful statement and tell
them your opinion. Ask them for facts. Ask them is one or few jokes
and opinions of RMS really worth to defame, slander and ruin his well
being and position in the community?

In fact, would I be RMS, I would replace those projects, fork them,
and let those rumor mongers go out of the GNU project.

GNU.ORG domain belongs to RMS, directly or indirectly.

Imagine my father gives my bed, room, food, education and money for
living, and then I go spiting in the face of my father.

I am saying no to that behavior.

But even if it would not be my father, I have respect to people who
are first older then me, and I wait with my judgments, and second, I
have great respect of people who have done social betterment actions,
like RMS did for this planet.

> > Those undersigners on the defamatory statement as published by
> > Ludovic Courtès are not representing the community neither they
> > have such authorizations. Statement is written by some amateur,
> > that is not public relation, that is hatred. That is harassment
> > and defamation.
> > 
> > Additionally it is criminal act in France.
> It's time to use a court ...

As I said, knowing RMS, he is waay too kind, he would probably never
do something like that. But I wonder how Ludovic Courtès allows
himself to commit criminal acts in France. Even I would never charge
him, for reasong that I would not like to vomit when I see him face to
face.

> I suppose people acts like the pointed 'undersigners' should go away
> and enjoy political shit they are proposing somewhere in twitter or

Exactly, they shall resign from GNU project.

That is hostile takeover attempt.

GNU.ORG belongs to RMS, I just wish he would be using more of his
authority and take over GNU project to RMS back and assign it only to
trusted people.

Those signers are not trusted people. They are all currently abusing
the GNU project, doing exactly that what they have accused RMS of.

> ...  loony girl from salesforce will provide such place, I don't
> know. The point is - it's all *not* about GNU, and gnu.org isn't a
> place for a dummy war of social justice monkeys warriors.  GNU is a
> mostly technical organization built for those who are ready to
> contribute (or use at least) to the free software, and that space
> doesn't have enough room for hysterical monkeys following modern
> leftist movement. Personally, I think that all this political shit
> over RMS is a way to split a community and to get more points for
> this stupid movement.

Let me use some of set theory:

- there is larger and broader community of free software supporters,
  users, which includes the political movements of open source and BSD
  and everything together

- there is smaller community of GNU free software supports who
  understand differences between open source and free software, and
  they are all pretty much friendly to each other. They may like GNU
  project or think being theirs, for example, I think that I am part
  of GNU. Thinking is not same as really having a position in GNU
  project. 

- and there is GNU project which consists of authorized people who are
  actually providing software and maintaining the GNU project.

- and then within that group there is now a hostile takeover group of
  people starting with Ludovic Courtès and his "fellows" where none of
  them could answer my email to provide me with the facts about their
  statement. They are behaving against established implicit and
  explicit GNU guidelines, and so far nobody from FSF is enforcing any
  policy against them. They are danger to GNU project.

My solution would be radical and simple: ask them to refrain damaging
GNU project, or fork their software, and expell them from GNU project.

AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

> > Let us clean GNU.ORG pages from personal opinions on RMS opinions.
> > 
> > They do not even communicate with each other. There is no
> > friendship or sense of community on such statement.
> > 
> > GNU project was created to get a friendly community of hackers,
> > please see GNU manifesto, and not to endorse separations.

> Again, if someone is quite damaged about some political shit (but
> personally I didn't find anything in RMS opinion) or social justice
> thing he or she should go away, gnu is about technical things and
> there are no place for alternatively mind-gifted people cares about
> ... about nothing, but they own importance.

Exactly, they shall remove themselves from GNU project. Let it be.

So far I know several people have resigned from Guix and GNU due to
their hostile behavior against RMS. Several people have stopped
donating money which is real damage to the FSF.

> > What Ludovic Courtès is doing is exactly that, he is producing
> > hatred, separation, making division in the friendly GNU free
> > software community.
> > 
> > Let me repeat, I do not mind what he is saying against RMS, but I
> > do mind that GNU.ORG is platform for his personal opinions.
> > 
> > Further his statement was never collective how it is called, it
> > was his statement and he asked other people to sign.
> > 
> > My opinion on your signing of that defamatory, harassing, biased
> > and fact-less statement is here:
> > https://gnu.support/richard-stallman/Ludovic-Court%C3%A8s-Guix-is-accusing-Stallman-of-Thoughtcrime-on-his-own-domain-GNU-org.html
> > 
> > I am entitling you to your opinion. I could not care less what
> > people write about each other, whatever rumours or facts would
> > be. I don't mind.
> > 
> > But I do not approve on publishing that on GUIX website or GNU.ORG
> > website. Neither I approve of publishing such statements without
> > commenting possibility.
> > 
> > That is why I am asking you to speak out your mind now. I will
> > publish your opinion or lack of opinion. I will publish facts you
> > provide me or lack of those facts.
> > 
> > So far there is no fact that support their statements.
> > 
> > Free speech is human right, and RMS has free speech rights, and
> > why he shall be embarassed, defamed, harassed on his own domain?

> Again, I'm agree with you here.

> > Please FSF and whoever is responsible and acting, join in the
> > quest to remove the off-topic politics from GNU.ORG website pages,
> > so that we stick to promotion of free software, just as quoted
> > from here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html
> > 
> > The only political positions that the GNU Project endorses are (1)
> > that users should have control of their own computing (for
> > instance, through free software) and (2) supporting basic human
> > rights in computing.
> > 
> > Let those few people NOT represent GNU project, as GNU project
> > never harassed anybody in this manner, and let us not allow
> > selected few of them to destroy those good feelings of community.
> > 
> > Jean
> > 

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1295 bytes --]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
> * Alexander Vdolainen <alex@vapaa.xyz> [2019-10-09 23:13]:
> - and then within that group there is now a hostile takeover group of people starting with Ludovic Courtès and his "fellows" where none of them could answer my email to provide me with the facts about their statement. They are behaving against established implicit and explicit GNU guidelines, and so far nobody from FSF is enforcing any policy against them. They are danger to GNU project.
>
> My solution would be radical and simple: ask them to refrain damaging GNU project, or fork their software, and expell them from GNU project.
>
> AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

Wow!  Ease off a bit!

You might not noticed that, but today Guix is the most vivid part of GNU.  And I could not image an action, that might cause more damage to GNU project, than urging Guix lead developers to leave.  Even if you believe that forking software over political discord is good thing to do (despite it does not align well with the rest of your message), by all means, you would not able to outcompete them, so it would simply ended in Guix out of GNU.  So it even more harmful than urging RMS to leave.  After all, RMS is mortal and, alas, will leave us and GNU sooner or later, while Guix is not necessary.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[Jean Louis]

It is not harmful if Guix remains free software, how it can be?

It is only harmful for Guix.

It was not my decision, it is theirs.


On October 10, 2019 11:39:42 AM UTC, Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
>> * Alexander Vdolainen <alex@vapaa.xyz> [2019-10-09 23:13]:
>> - and then within that group there is now a hostile takeover group of
>people starting with Ludovic Courtès and his "fellows" where none of
>them could answer my email to provide me with the facts about their
>statement. They are behaving against established implicit and explicit
>GNU guidelines, and so far nobody from FSF is enforcing any policy
>against them. They are danger to GNU project.
>>
>> My solution would be radical and simple: ask them to refrain damaging
>GNU project, or fork their software, and expell them from GNU project.
>>
>> AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
>
>Wow!  Ease off a bit!
>
>You might not noticed that, but today Guix is the most vivid part of
>GNU.  And I could not image an action, that might cause more damage to
>GNU project, than urging Guix lead developers to leave.  Even if you
>believe that forking software over political discord is good thing to
>do (despite it does not align well with the rest of your message), by
>all means, you would not able to outcompete them, so it would simply
>ended in Guix out of GNU.  So it even more harmful than urging RMS to
>leave.  After all, RMS is mortal and, alas, will leave us and GNU
>sooner or later, while Guix is not necessary.

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2420 bytes --]

Did you move it offlist intentionally?  If not, may I resend it back?

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
> On October 10, 2019 11:39:42 AM UTC, Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
>>> * Alexander Vdolainen <alex@vapaa.xyz> [2019-10-09 23:13]:
>>> - and then within that group there is now a hostile takeover group of
>>people starting with Ludovic Courtès and his "fellows" where none of
>>them could answer my email to provide me with the facts about their
>>statement. They are behaving against established implicit and explicit
>>GNU guidelines, and so far nobody from FSF is enforcing any policy
>>against them. They are danger to GNU project.
>>>
>>> My solution would be radical and simple: ask them to refrain damaging
>>GNU project, or fork their software, and expell them from GNU project.
>>>
>>> AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

Have you noticed, that your MUA produces quoting mess in attempt to hardwrap lines while being unable to do that properly?  As there is actually no point in hardwrapping lines, you’d better just disable it rather than trying to fix.

>>Wow!  Ease off a bit!
>>
>>You might not noticed that, but today Guix is the most vivid part of
>>GNU.  And I could not image an action, that might cause more damage to
>>GNU project, than urging Guix lead developers to leave.  Even if you
>>believe that forking software over political discord is good thing to
>>do (despite it does not align well with the rest of your message), by
>>all means, you would not able to outcompete them, so it would simply
>>ended in Guix out of GNU.  So it even more harmful than urging RMS to
>>leave.  After all, RMS is mortal and, alas, will leave us and GNU
>>sooner or later, while Guix is not necessary.
>
> It is not harmful if Guix remains free software, how it can be?

What the point of dubbing some free program an official GNU package nowadays?  In other words, why such thing as GNU software still exists at all, when impulse it gave 35 years ago was successful and free software is not rare anymore?

> It is only harmful for Guix.

I do not see how it can be harmful for Guix.  Not to say, that you are also urging to oust, at least, Guile and GnuPG.

> It was not my decision, it is theirs.

Of course, it up to them, and I hope they have enough respect for GNU and RMS heritage not to follow you strong advice.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[Stefan Huchler]

> Wow!  Ease off a bit!
>
> You might not noticed that, but today Guix is the most vivid part of
> GNU.  And I could not image an action, that might cause more damage to
> GNU project, than urging Guix lead developers to leave.  Even if you
> believe that forking software over political discord is good thing to
> do (despite it does not align well with the rest of your message), by
> all means, you would not able to outcompete them, so it would simply
> ended in Guix out of GNU.  So it even more harmful than urging RMS to
> leave.  After all, RMS is mortal and, alas, will leave us and GNU
> sooner or later, while Guix is not necessary.

I am a Lisp developer mostly Elisp and a Nixos User and have on one
Machine Guix system installed, I believe in Free Software yet I don't
get how on the Guix Website a Article against RMS could be posted and
despite some issues with Nixos partly because of technical reasons but
more so of ideological reasons feel not welcome in the Guix community to
phrase it mildly.

That some devs in a team have different oppinions is one thing but that
they post it on the guix.gnu.org website really puts me off
completely. When that stands on that website, everybody implicitly that
works for that project also stands for that if they want to or not.

That are my opinions I at least have not written a bug report or feature
request here because of that incident and likely more feedback including
some code that could have come in the future from me stands in question.

So surely seperately fork one small linux distro over that is maybe not
very clever, but maybe the FSF should be forked and then yes maybe it's
nessesary to have more forks of projects, when the differences become to
big.

Many similar projects exist because 1 uses GPL and one uses BSD, so if
peopl want a GPL + SJW Edition implicit or explicit in some cases:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/you-cant-open-source-license-morality/

I also don't trust people that can't logically think or cite people
correctly and attack people on strawman arguments on writing good code.

But I don't know your internal processes inside GNU, but I can only say
that for (at least some) outsiders like me it all looks like a big red
flag.

My 2 cents.

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[ng0]

Oi.
Shut up and get another audience for your monologue theater act.
I am no longer involved in guix that much, but your trash keeps
piling up in my inbox.

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[Jean Louis]

How are you?

On October 10, 2019 12:39:00 PM UTC, Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>Did you move it offlist intentionally?  If not, may I resend it back?

Me for sure not intentionally and Guix managers are anyway conducting censorship... So no big deal.

You can resend what you wish. I am not forbidding two-way free speech.

>>>Wow!  Ease off a bit!

No need. I am not feeling fear when I state something. So they did not ease with thru FUD and defamation on Guix pages on GNU.org domain, so why MD or others should be silenced? No need.

>>>You might not noticed that, but today Guix is the most vivid part of
>>>GNU.  And I could not image an action, that might cause more damage
>to
>>>GNU project, than urging Guix lead developers to leave. 

I don't see absolutely no problem there. And they also not. Their strategy is clear that they want their own community where thought police is to punish thought crime. So I let them be. 

Their behavior does not fit into GNU kind communication guidelines.

And free software can be freely used? So what is the loss? Their only loss is for them to lose other 100000 dollars donation, that is possible reason for their hostile take over attempt.


>>>all means, you would not able to outcompete them, so it would simply
>>>ended in Guix out of GNU.  

I am last person to convince on that as I am aware of their FUD and harm they do to Guix, GNU and RMS. Convince others.

>What the point of dubbing some free program an official GNU package
>nowadays? 

What is point in backstabbing of RMS? I asked and never got answers but FUD.

>I do not see how it can be harmful for Guix.  Not to say, that you are
>also urging to oust, at least, Guile and GnuPG.

No, not at all. I am asking people to behave according to GNU kind communication guidelines. And if they don't like it to step down and make their own platform for their FUD. But using GNU.org domain to defame and harass RMS is disaster for future.

>Of course, it up to them, and I hope they have enough respect for GNU
>and RMS heritage not to follow you strong advice.

They have no respect for RMS. 

Jean Louis

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2417 bytes --]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
> How are you?

Ehm...  Fine.  What is the occasion to ask?

> On October 10, 2019 12:39:00 PM UTC, Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Did you move it offlist intentionally?  If not, may I resend it back?
>
> Me for sure not intentionally and Guix managers are anyway conducting censorship... So no big deal.

I suppose, they are not in position to censor gnu-system-discuss@gnu.org.

> You can resend what you wish. I am not forbidding two-way free speech.

Done.

>>>>Wow!  Ease off a bit!
>
> No need. I am not feeling fear when I state something. So they did not ease with thru FUD and defamation on Guix pages on GNU.org domain, so why MD or others should be silenced? No need.
>
>>>>You might not noticed that, but today Guix is the most vivid part of GNU.  And I could not image an action, that might cause more damage to GNU project, than urging Guix lead developers to leave.
>
> I [] see absolutely no problem there.

I’m afraid, Dr. Stallman would see.

> And free software can be freely used? So what is the loss?

The loss is hidden behind the question, I suggested you to think on: “What the point of dubbing some free program an official GNU package nowadays?  Why such thing as GNU software still exists at all, when impulse it gave 35 years ago was successful and free software is not rare anymore?”

>>I do not see how it can be harmful for Guix.
>
> Their only loss is for them to lose other 100000 dollars donation, that is possible reason for their hostile take over attempt.

> What is point in backstabbing of RMS? I asked and never got answers but FUD.

To get rid of him, of course.  Why to ask for obvious answer?

>>I do not see how it can be harmful for Guix.  Not to say, that you are also urging to oust, at least, Guile and GnuPG.
>
> No, not at all. I am asking people to behave according to GNU kind communication guidelines.

Many of your letters contain a footer with a call for lead developers of Guix, Guile and GnuPG to leave GNU.  Even if your claim that Guix depends on FSF financially is true, GPG is for sure self-sufficient.

>>Of course, it up to them, and I hope they have enough respect for GNU and RMS heritage not to follow you strong advice.
>
> They have no respect for RMS.

I hope, that you have, though.  And thus will stop to tear down the project he founded.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[Jean Louis]

On October 10, 2019 8:29:06 PM UTC, Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
>> How are you?
>
>Ehm...  Fine.  What is the occasion to ask?

We are then from different cultures simply. At my side it is always used similarly as hand shaking.

>> I [] see absolutely no problem there.
>
>I’m afraid, Dr. Stallman would see.

My protest is not to align all my thoughts with Dr. Stallman, my protest is that defamation and harassment of RMS is taking place on Guix.GNU.org website.

It is the code of good conduct of Guix itself where they promised harass-free space with respect to other people's opinions. See: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/CODE-OF-CONDUCT

Writing policies while abusing them themselves is hypocrisy and this time it is bad enough that caused international online protests.

>> What is point in backstabbing of RMS? I asked and never got answers
>but FUD.
>
>To get rid of him, of course.  Why to ask for obvious answer?

Well I don't see it that way. I see it as a hostile fact-less thought police punishing and degrading GNU, Guix, FSF and RMS for the thought crime. See the book 1984

>Many of your letters contain a footer with a call for lead developers
>of Guix, Guile and GnuPG to leave GNU. 

Exactly. That is my opinion. If myself cannot agree with my own community's published  coffee of conduct and the founder and if I am to abuse the platform given to me by founder and his work to abuse his image and defame him, then I would never do that, I would step down.

Reason that they don't have guts is all the comfort they got from FSF and GNU which is, was and is being caused by RMS.

Comfort like this https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2018/gnu-guix-receives-donation-from-the-handshake-project/ is hard to resist to get their things straight.

>> They have no respect for RMS.
>
>I hope, that you have, though.  And thus will stop to tear down the
>project he founded.

I have never protested against the GNU project as in itself it cannot cause actions. My protest is not against Ludovic Courtès's opinion neither their free speech, despite all of their efforts to silence every protestors' voice. See their logs for evidences of the plot.

My protest is against defamation of founder of the GNU project and on the GNU project's domain!

If Ludovic Courtès would publish it on his website I could probably comment on his own website. But he did not. By the way I did not find one mention of Dr. Stallman on his pages. Think about that and proper crediting.

Ludovic Courtès published it on Guix website hosted on GNU domain. I am objecting to that. And I am not alone, there are already hundreds supporting comments from all over the world, podcast and defenses, I am not alone thinker and please don't turn my words to something what I have not stated. Same strategy was used to defame Stallman. And same was used by Ludovic Courtès on their disrespectful statement.

Jean 

Reminder to remain civil

[Ricardo Wurmus]

ng0 <ng0@n0.is> writes [something]

Please keep the language here civil.  We don’t need more anger on our
lists.  If you feel frustrated, please take some time off email and (for
example) enjoy the local manifestation of autumn in your physical
environment.  It is of no use to escalate by venting here.

Thanks.

--
Ricardo

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[Ruben Safir]

too bad.  Do you need more email space?  I can lend you some



On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 04:44:03PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
> Oi.
> Shut up and get another audience for your monologue theater act.
> I am no longer involved in guix that much, but your trash keeps
> piling up in my inbox.

-- 
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com 

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive 
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com 

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, 
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[Jean Louis]

* Kete via Discussions about the development of the GNU system <gnu-system-discuss@gnu.org> [2019-10-12 03:28]:
> On 10/11/2019 04:43 PM, Alexander Vdolainen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 10/11/19 11:16 PM, Kete via Discussions about the development of the
> > GNU system wrote:
> >> On 10/10/2019 05:02 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
> > ... skipped ...
> >>> Well I don't see it that way. I see it as a hostile fact-less thought police punishing and degrading GNU, Guix, FSF and RMS for the thought crime. See the book 1984
> >>>
> >> I think there's more to it than thoughts. I think RMS said something
> >> offensive and has made MIT a toxic environment for women for many years.
> >>
> > Where did you get this bullshit ?
> >
> https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794

There are already numerous refutals and analyzes on that.

https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman/
https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UbQ1kc1vQU or
https://watchkin.com/y/7UbQ1kc1vQU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGF17TbbBcE

Try to watch YouTube videos by using hypervideo or youtube
downloaders.

That is biased articles and even if all that is true, GNU project
shall be socially and politically independent of all of the opinions
of their leader or developers.

Because if we would join the GNU project for reason of what their
individual members are thinking, then it is not GNU project any more.

That we agree on GNU as free operating system, that is what we share
in common and any other opinion outside of GNU as Free Operating
System shall be discussed outside of the GNU websites.

I don't mind if such opinions are discussed on mailing lists supported
by GNU, as such allow two-way communication and responses.

What I am protesting is that rumor mongering is ruining the Guix
project of being politically independent, they are taking their side
to feminists politics, or call it how you want, I don't even know,
but that they are taking their side to certain political movements
others than free software movement, is what is damaging the GNU as
politically independent (other politics but free software).

RMS is not require to remain politically independent but he does not
share his political viewpoints on GNU project, not others but free
software movement. That is why he has non-GNU www.stallman.org
website.

Same shall be done by everybody who is supporting GNU project but has
political stances on other politics but free software, they shall
publish such opinions on their websites not related to GNU projects.

Jean

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[Jean Louis]

* Alexandre François Garreau <galex-713@galex-713.eu> [2019-10-11 13:53]:
> Le jeudi 10 octobre 2019 12:24:35 CEST, vous avez écrit :
> > * Alexandre François Garreau <galex-713@galex-713.eu> [2019-10-10 11:55]:
> > > > I don't know how to defend anybody in public by silencing talk.
> > > 
> > > Answering whenever appropriate, currently only when asked to, and keep
> > > going this way.
> > 
> > I have no such mentality.
> > 
> > I am doing for RMS what I would like that other people do for
> > me. Stand up and raise the voice. Not wait. That is not me.
> 
> Maybe if you were in the position of rms you would think differently, better 
> acknowledging the different tensions et pressions out there.

Dear Alexandre,

I am sorry, I will take this to the mailing list, not let it be
private.

I do not know what RMS thinks, what I know is that GNU project shall
remain apolitical. The only politics that GNU project shall support is
"(1) that users should have control of their own computing (for
instance, through free software) and (2) supporting basic human rights
in computing. We don't require you as a contributor to agree with
these two points, but you do need to accept that our decisions will be
based on them." See:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html

RMS has upheld the above points, and was always apolitical in regards
to free software. He knows well that free software can be used to
prevent abortions, and to make abortions. For example it could be
possible to make an automatic robotic hand that does abortion()
function without presence of doctors, and such could be done with free
software.

I know it because I have read freedom zero: "The freedom to run the
program as you wish" -- so it means AS YOU WISH. To kill, or prevent
killing, to abort or not about() I don't care. I am distributing free
software and truly giving that freedom to others.

GNU project shall remain apolitical for anything but free
software.

Thus feminist views of Ludovic Courtès and Andy Wingo and other
feminists that have published their defaming and libelous statement
on: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/
are not welcome on GNU project.

They are preventing contra-feminists to join the Guix project, GNU
project, due to their political views.

GNU project is welcoming feminists, and contra-feminists, but for as
long as the GNU project is not abused to spread out their propaganda.

And nobody is preventing them to publish their opinions outside of GNU
project. If they have balls for that.

Jean Louis

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[Kete via Discussions about the development of the GNU system]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3799 bytes --]

On 10/12/2019 05:19 AM, Jean Louis wrote:
> https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman
"In short: Stallman made some technically-correct-but-utterly-tactless
comments...."

Here are the comments:

    “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting
    one of Epstein’s victims [2])”

    The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault”
    is so vague....

    The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in
    some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
    Only that they had sex.

    We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that
    she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was
    being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her
    to conceal that from most of his associates.

    I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it
    is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.

I'm unhappy to see dozens if not hundreds of emails and blog posts that
regurgitate Stallman's exact argument, "taking claims that someone did X
and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X." If
all of this Stallman logic produces such braindead puppetry, then it is
indeed time for new leaders, people who will embrace critical thought.
Besides, there is no way these men are getting these transactions
without assault or coercion taking place. Just because Epstein mediated
that force so that the clients didn't have to get their hands dirty is
no reason to make a stink over how preying on defenseless people in a
peaceful manner is not violence. There is no way they could do that
without someone doing the violence for them. The money cleans that from
their conscience, but they are still involved with the abuse because it
is part of the service that they buy.

> https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UbQ1kc1vQU or
> https://watchkin.com/y/7UbQ1kc1vQU
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGF17TbbBcE
>
> Try to watch YouTube videos by using hypervideo or youtube
> downloaders.
>
> That is biased articles and even if all that is true, GNU project
> shall be socially and politically independent of all of the opinions
> of their leader or developers.
>
> Because if we would join the GNU project for reason of what their
> individual members are thinking, then it is not GNU project any more.
>
> That we agree on GNU as free operating system, that is what we share
> in common and any other opinion outside of GNU as Free Operating
> System shall be discussed outside of the GNU websites.
>
> I don't mind if such opinions are discussed on mailing lists supported
> by GNU, as such allow two-way communication and responses.
>
> What I am protesting is that rumor mongering is ruining the Guix
> project of being politically independent, they are taking their side
> to feminists politics, or call it how you want, I don't even know,
> but that they are taking their side to certain political movements
> others than free software movement, is what is damaging the GNU as
> politically independent (other politics but free software).
>
> RMS is not require to remain politically independent but he does not
> share his political viewpoints on GNU project, not others but free
> software movement. That is why he has non-GNU www.stallman.org
> website.
>
> Same shall be done by everybody who is supporting GNU project but has
> political stances on other politics but free software, they shall
> publish such opinions on their websites not related to GNU projects.
>
> Jean

-- 
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5630 bytes --]

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 13 octobre 2019, 15:05:06 CEST Kete via Discussions about the 
development of the GNU system a écrit :
> Besides, there is no way these men are getting these transactions
> without assault or coercion taking place. Just because Epstein mediated
> that force so that the clients didn't have to get their hands dirty is
> no reason to make a stink over how preying on defenseless people in a
> peaceful manner is not violence. There is no way they could do that
> without someone doing the violence for them. The money cleans that from
> their conscience, but they are still involved with the abuse because it
> is part of the service that they buy.

What rms said is that Minsky wouldn’t have been *aware* of it.  And there’s a 
difference between doing, supporting, ordering, knowing, and unknowingly 
benefiting, especially legally.

Anyway, it was already said that Minsky didn’t do anything:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/

Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, not free software related thoughtcrime accusations from the Guix project pages on GNU.ORG websitew

[František Kučera]

Dne 13. 10. 19 v 15:05 Kete via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU
System distribution. napsal(a):
> Besides, there is no way these men are getting these transactions
> without assault or coercion taking place.

Generally speaking, older men have sex or relationships with younger
women – it is not rare and it even comes through mainstream media
without much embarrassment e.g. here:
<https://www.super.cz/570619-dado-na-tohle-se-nedivej-takhle-si-gelemova-35-v-bikinach-klecici-pred-polonahym-felixem-75-uziva-leto.html>
(no, he is not her grandfather). You can discuss how much normal or
weird it is, but such relationships are possible perfectly legally and
without any violence or even without prostitution.

Franta

Reminder to keep posts on topic

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Hi František,

it surprises me that I have to repeat this, but discussions that not
relate to the development of Guix are off topic on this list.

Please respect the many subscribers to this list by keeping your posts
to this list on topic.

-- 
Ricardo

(Really) Free Software future Was: Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, ...

[Svante Signell]

On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 21:44 -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.]]]
> 
> Indeed, gnu-system-discuss is for system-level technical issues.
> We set up gnu-community-private for nontechnical issues.
> Please, everyone, move this discussion there.
> 

The following is definitely on-topic for the gnu-system-discuss mailing
list, as it is technical. 

I'm also Cc:ing this to guix-devel, who made the big mistake of
publishing the joint statement to that list: (however, I'm a big fan of
Guix, it is a major contribution to really free software, see below)

I'd like to bring up two things you Richard was too weak to make a
statement on historically: gnome and systemd.

Gnome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME When Miguel de Icaza
destroyed the gnome project with his contributions to that project.

From August 2015:
Me:
> > OK; I understand that you cannot take action for software using the
> GPL that you created (here systemd), even if Freedom 1 is violated.
> > Nevertheless, can you please take your (GNU/FSF) hand off Gnome, it
> is no longer (in my and many others opinion) a GNU project (and
> hasn't been for a long  time, since Miguel took over).
> > 
> Hi again. Sorry to bother you. In the world of free and open
> software, systemd is one of the most mean creatures. And you from
> FSF/GNU still don't have an opinion? Additionally, why are you still
> supporting gnome; they don't adhere to the free software philosophy
> any longer, it died with icaza :(

Me:
>   > Additionally, why are you still supporting gnome;
>   > they don't adhere to the free software philosophy any longer,
> 
RMS:
> How so?
> 
>   >  it died with icaza :(
> 
RMS:
> On the contrary, he betrayed us totally; GNOME has more or less
> got back on track since his departure.

I don't agree and many with me don't either. Please exclude Gnome from
ther GNU project list. That would be brave of you, still being the head
of GNU.

From May 2015:
Me about freedom 1:
> * 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. 

> Systemd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd
> violates freedom 1: (as well as the *NIX and KISS philosophy)

 
> The agenda is very clear: Extend, embrace and extinguish. No other
> distros will survive in the long term.

RMS from August 2015:
> I know Systemd is free software.  As for its technical merits or
> demerits, I have never seen it so I don't have an opinion.

Me:
> Is there any way that you could consider taking away your/FSF/GNU
> support away from Gnome. That would make a large impact in the Free
> Software community (and maybe also in the Open Source community).

The above statement also applies to systemd. Perhaps we should divide
free software into two groups: 1) Really free software where Freedom 1
applies and 2) not-so-free software where Freedom 1 does no longer
applies.

Here gnome and systemd are in the second kind. Especially systemd, even
if GPLed, is currently swallowing most of free software excluding large
groups of people to make contributions. This is not a bright future for
free software, it is destroying it (every vendor lock-in dream)

Thank you for your time.

Re: Reminder to keep posts on topic

[Mikhail Kryshen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1068 bytes --]

Excuse me, Ricardo, but if this project is political (as you have
stated), then there are political issues that are relevant to its
development.  Otherwise, what does it mean for a project to be
political?  And since the "joint statement" is published on the Guix
website, the politics it invokes must be relevant to the project.

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:

> Hi František,
>
> it surprises me that I have to repeat this, but discussions that not
> relate to the development of Guix are off topic on this list.

Then, please, apply the same standards to yourself as you demand of
others and remove the off-topic statement from the Guix website.  Doing
so would not, of course, automatically invalidate the message of the
statement, which is a separate issue that, I agree, should be discussed
elsewhere.

> Please respect the many subscribers to this list by keeping your posts
> to this list on topic.

Yes, please, also respect the readers of the Guix website and remove the
off-topic statement from there.

-- 
Mikhail

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 658 bytes --]

Re: (Really) Free Software future Was: Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, ...

[Jesse Gibbons]

On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 21:44 -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.]]]
> > 
> > Indeed, gnu-system-discuss is for system-level technical issues.
> > We set up gnu-community-private for nontechnical issues.
> > Please, everyone, move this discussion there.
> > 
> 
> The following is definitely on-topic for the gnu-system-discuss mailing
> list, as it is technical. 
> 
> I'm also Cc:ing this to guix-devel, who made the big mistake of
> publishing the joint statement to that list: (however, I'm a big fan of
> Guix, it is a major contribution to really free software, see below)

The only way I see this as on topic is guixsd would need to stop supporting
gnome if gnome is not actually free software and guixsd is to remain a
purely free distro. The guix developers would have a major interest in that.
> 
> I'd like to bring up two things you Richard was too weak to make a
> statement on historically: gnome and systemd.
> 
> Gnome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME When Miguel de Icaza
> destroyed the gnome project with his contributions to that project.
> 
> From August 2015:
> Me:
> > > OK; I understand that you cannot take action for software using the
> > GPL that you created (here systemd), even if Freedom 1 is violated.
> > > Nevertheless, can you please take your (GNU/FSF) hand off Gnome, it
> > is no longer (in my and many others opinion) a GNU project (and
> > hasn't been for a long  time, since Miguel took over).
> > Hi again. Sorry to bother you. In the world of free and open
> > software, systemd is one of the most mean creatures. And you from
> > FSF/GNU still don't have an opinion? Additionally, why are you still
> > supporting gnome; they don't adhere to the free software philosophy
> > any longer, it died with icaza :(
> 
> Me:
> >   > Additionally, why are you still supporting gnome;
> >   > they don't adhere to the free software philosophy any longer,
> > 
> RMS:
> > How so?
> > 
> >   >  it died with icaza :(
> > 
> RMS:
> > On the contrary, he betrayed us totally; GNOME has more or less
> > got back on track since his departure.
> 
> I don't agree and many with me don't either. Please exclude Gnome from
> ther GNU project list. That would be brave of you, still being the head
> of GNU.

I am not familiar with what icaza did to gnome. What's a good source for me
to read to catch up?
> 
> From May 2015:
> Me about freedom 1:
> > * 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. 
> > Systemd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd
> > violates freedom 1: (as well as the *NIX and KISS philosophy)
> 
>  
> > The agenda is very clear: Extend, embrace and extinguish. No other
> > distros will survive in the long term.
> 
> RMS from August 2015:
> > I know Systemd is free software.  As for its technical merits or
> > demerits, I have never seen it so I don't have an opinion.
> 
> Me:
> > Is there any way that you could consider taking away your/FSF/GNU
> > support away from Gnome. That would make a large impact in the Free
> > Software community (and maybe also in the Open Source community).
> 
> The above statement also applies to systemd. Perhaps we should divide
> free software into two groups: 1) Really free software where Freedom 1
> applies and 2) not-so-free software where Freedom 1 does no longer
> applies.
> Here gnome and systemd are in the second kind. Especially systemd, even
> if GPLed, is currently swallowing most of free software excluding large
> groups of people to make contributions. This is not a bright future for
> free software, it is destroying it (every vendor lock-in dream)
> 
> Thank you for your time.
> 
> 
> 
Free software by definition implies freedom 1 applies to it. If software
cannot be modified, it is nonfree.
If software is nonfree, then guix should not support it.

Re: (Really) Free Software future Was: Re: Proposal to remove the off-topic, ...

[Paul Smith]

On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> Perhaps we should divide free software into two groups: 1) Really
> free software where Freedom 1 applies and 2) not-so-free software
> where Freedom 1 does no longer applies.
> 
> Here gnome and systemd are in the second kind.

Both GNOME and systemd are fully free software that support all four
freedoms, including freedom 1.

> Especially systemd, even if GPLed, is currently swallowing most of
> free software excluding large groups of people to make contributions.

Neither excluding upstream contributions nor "swallowing" other free
software projects violate any of the four freedoms.

As long as you are able to run the program, access the source code,
modify the source code as you like, and distribute both the original
and your modifications to others, then your freedoms are preserved.

Re: Reminder to keep posts on topic

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Hi Mikhail,

> Then, please, apply the same standards to yourself as you demand of
> others and remove the off-topic statement from the Guix website.  Doing
> so would not, of course, automatically invalidate the message of the
> statement, which is a separate issue that, I agree, should be discussed
> elsewhere.

I’m not playing this game.  Please refrain from using guix-devel for
discussions that do not pertain to the development of Guix.

People who repeatedly ignore these requests will be put on moderation.

--
Ricardo

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Svante Signell]

On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > Perhaps we should divide free software into two groups: 1) Really
> > free software where Freedom 1 applies and 2) not-so-free software
> > where Freedom 1 does no longer applies.
> > 
> > Here gnome and systemd are in the second kind.
> 
> Both GNOME and systemd are fully free software that support all four
> freedoms, including freedom 1.

Still, I think we need to differentiate between Really Free Software
and Not-So-Free Software. Maybe even to add one more freedom: For
example adding a, non-commercial, non-lock-in, non-proprietary, *NIX
and KISS-friendly, clause. Software development is nowadays too vendor
driven (and purposely made complicated), ruling out contributions from
people not employed by companies working full-time. 

> > Especially systemd, even if GPLed, is currently swallowing most of
> > free software excluding large groups of people to make
> > contributions.
> 
> Neither excluding upstream contributions nor "swallowing" other free
> software projects violate any of the four freedoms.
> 
> As long as you are able to run the program, access the source code,
> modify the source code as you like, and distribute both the original
> and your modifications to others, then your freedoms are preserved.

See above. A redefinition of free software is really needed,
independent of RMS being leader of GNU or not. And funding for Really
Free Software can be steered by FSF towards the goal of Really Free
Software, leaving non-complying companies out of funding. (whoever will
take the lead of FSF after RMS).

I'd really like RMS to reply on these issues, adding him to this email
recipients too.

Thanks!

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Paul Smith]

On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 18:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should divide free software into two groups: 1) Really
> > > free software where Freedom 1 applies and 2) not-so-free software
> > > where Freedom 1 does no longer applies.
> > > 
> > > Here gnome and systemd are in the second kind.
> > 
> > Both GNOME and systemd are fully free software that support all four
> > freedoms, including freedom 1.
> 
> Still, I think we need to differentiate between Really Free Software
> and Not-So-Free Software. Maybe even to add one more freedom: For
> example adding a, non-commercial, non-lock-in, non-proprietary, *NIX
> and KISS-friendly, clause. Software development is nowadays too vendor
> driven (and purposely made complicated), ruling out contributions from
> people not employed by companies working full-time. 

It's not clear (to me at least) what distinction you're hoping to make
between "Really Free" and "Not-So-Free".  Perhaps you could provide an
initial attempt at a set of criteria by which software would become
"Really Free", and discuss why GNOME and systemd don't meet those
criteria.  Until that happens I don't see what sort of reply RMS could
give.

Most likely such a discussion should be moved to gnu-misc-discuss: I
don't think it belongs on either of the current two mailing lists
until/unless there's an actionable outcome.

For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
using the common meaning of the term.  Also, "lock-in" usually refers
to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
and systemd are certainly not lock-in.

A non-commercial clause is directly opposed to the four freedoms (in
particular freedom 0).  In fact a number of otherwise-could-be-free
software licenses have been deemed non-free solely for this type of
thing.  Unless I misunderstand what you mean by "non-commercial
clause".

I don't think it's appropriate to state that software that doesn't
follow KISS can be considered non-free... how does one even measure
that?  By whose definition is software not "simple"?  Many people would
suggest that GCC, glibc, Emacs, or other flagship GNU packages are not
"KISS".  Similarly, there's no concrete definition of "*NIX principles"
that one can use.  Who will decide?  Again many people would suggest
Emacs, with its "editor as an OS interface" construction, doesn't
follow *NIX principles.  I don't see how these criteria can be used to
measure software freedoms, other than by each person individually
according to their own tastes.

As with all free software, if someone feels that some software is not
KISS (enough) or not *NIX (enough), they can avail themselves of their
four freedoms and modify that software as they like, and distribute it
to anyone else they like.

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Alexander Vdolainen]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2327 bytes --]

Hi,

On 10/14/19 9:16 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 18:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:

(skipped)

> For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
> using the common meaning of the term.  Also, "lock-in" usually refers
> to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
> and systemd are certainly not lock-in.

I'm afraid but I cannot agree with that. Actually with systemd design
you have 'lock-in', because in some cases you need to modify a source
code to support systemd (or you will face something like this -
https://superuser.com/questions/1372963/how-do-i-keep-systemd-from-killing-my-tmux-sessions).
Also, a lot of system daemons has eaten by systemd (and to make it works
some forks were created like eudev).
Finally, correct me if I wrong, but GNOME 3.8 and newer requires systemd
to run, it's a lock-in isn't it ?

> 
> A non-commercial clause is directly opposed to the four freedoms (in
> particular freedom 0).  In fact a number of otherwise-could-be-free
> software licenses have been deemed non-free solely for this type of
> thing.  Unless I misunderstand what you mean by "non-commercial
> clause".
> 
> I don't think it's appropriate to state that software that doesn't
> follow KISS can be considered non-free... how does one even measure
> that?  By whose definition is software not "simple"?  Many people would
> suggest that GCC, glibc, Emacs, or other flagship GNU packages are not
> "KISS".  Similarly, there's no concrete definition of "*NIX principles"
> that one can use.  Who will decide?  Again many people would suggest
> Emacs, with its "editor as an OS interface" construction, doesn't
> follow *NIX principles.  I don't see how these criteria can be used to
> measure software freedoms, other than by each person individually
> according to their own tastes.
> 
> As with all free software, if someone feels that some software is not
> KISS (enough) or not *NIX (enough), they can avail themselves of their
> four freedoms and modify that software as they like, and distribute it
> to anyone else they like.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Alexander Vdolainen,
Evil contractor.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Jesse Gibbons]

On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 18:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should divide free software into two groups: 1) Really
> > > free software where Freedom 1 applies and 2) not-so-free software
> > > where Freedom 1 does no longer applies.
> > > 
> > > Here gnome and systemd are in the second kind.
> > 
> > Both GNOME and systemd are fully free software that support all four
> > freedoms, including freedom 1.
> 
> Still, I think we need to differentiate between Really Free Software
> and Not-So-Free Software. Maybe even to add one more freedom: For
> example adding a, non-commercial, non-lock-in, non-proprietary, *NIX
> and KISS-friendly, clause. Software development is nowadays too vendor
> driven (and purposely made complicated), ruling out contributions from
> people not employed by companies working full-time. 
> 
> > > Especially systemd, even if GPLed, is currently swallowing most of
> > > free software excluding large groups of people to make
> > > contributions.
> > 
> > Neither excluding upstream contributions nor "swallowing" other free
> > software projects violate any of the four freedoms.
> > 
> > As long as you are able to run the program, access the source code,
> > modify the source code as you like, and distribute both the original
> > and your modifications to others, then your freedoms are preserved.
> 
> See above. A redefinition of free software is really needed,
> independent of RMS being leader of GNU or not. And funding for Really
> Free Software can be steered by FSF towards the goal of Really Free
> Software, leaving non-complying companies out of funding. (whoever will
> take the lead of FSF after RMS).
> 
> I'd really like RMS to reply on these issues, adding him to this email
> recipients too.
> 
> Thanks!
> 

Free software is about end-user freedom, and has nothing to do with the
ability to push upstream. The distinction "really free" vs "not so free"
looks to me like an appeal to purity[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


I no longer see how this is relevant to guix-devel.

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Jesse Gibbons]

On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 21:32 +0300, Alexander Vdolainen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 10/14/19 9:16 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 18:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> 
> (skipped)
> 
> > For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
> > using the common meaning of the term.  Also, "lock-in" usually refers
> > to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
> > and systemd are certainly not lock-in.
> 
> I'm afraid but I cannot agree with that. Actually with systemd design
> you have 'lock-in', because in some cases you need to modify a source
> code to support systemd (or you will face something like this -
> https://superuser.com/questions/1372963/how-do-i-keep-systemd-from-killing-my-tmux-sessions).
> Also, a lot of system daemons has eaten by systemd (and to make it works
> some forks were created like eudev).
> Finally, correct me if I wrong, but GNOME 3.8 and newer requires systemd
> to run, it's a lock-in isn't it ?
I'm assuming by GNOME you mean gnome-shell. Please let me know if I'm
incorrect.

Guix has packaged gnome-shell 3.30.2 but has not packaged systemd.
If systemd was a requirement for gnome-shell guix would have had to package
systemd in order for gnome-shell to compile and/or work, by definition of
requirement.
gnome-shell builds and works just fine in guix.
It follows that systemd is not a prerequisite for gnome-shell 3.30.2.

Please consider this a friendly correction :)

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[marinus.savoritias]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4193 bytes --]

Systemd is Free Software no doubt but, it is vendor lockin. GNOME too. 
They are because:
1) systemd has absorbed many things like udev which are important for all distros into their own project. Thus you have to "extract" it. 
2) I would argue that you can't replace systemd on the fly. On gentoo you had specific use-flags for systemd to make things work. 
3) The Elogind situation. GNOME depends on systemd features for anything they want. Because of that GNOME makes it hell for other distros to use the environment without Systemd. 

Now I understand that you have the choice not to use systemd or GNOME. In the case of the first though you have to use obscure distros with specific flags and packages and hacks. Often behind on other packages which depend on it. The second one is kind of ironic that it is GNU in my opinion. Since they don't use many GNU tools anymore or even the acronym for that matter. The lock-in for GNOME is that they have a predetermined set of tools they want you to use. You can't pick and choose easily without advanced configurations.

Fannys.

Oct 14, 2019, 20:16 by psmith@gnu.org:

> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 18:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>> > > Perhaps we should divide free software into two groups: 1) Really
>> > > free software where Freedom 1 applies and 2) not-so-free software
>> > > where Freedom 1 does no longer applies.
>> > > 
>> > > Here gnome and systemd are in the second kind.
>> > 
>> > Both GNOME and systemd are fully free software that support all four
>> > freedoms, including freedom 1.
>>
>> Still, I think we need to differentiate between Really Free Software
>> and Not-So-Free Software. Maybe even to add one more freedom: For
>> example adding a, non-commercial, non-lock-in, non-proprietary, *NIX
>> and KISS-friendly, clause. Software development is nowadays too vendor
>> driven (and purposely made complicated), ruling out contributions from
>> people not employed by companies working full-time.
>>
>
> It's not clear (to me at least) what distinction you're hoping to make
> between "Really Free" and "Not-So-Free".  Perhaps you could provide an
> initial attempt at a set of criteria by which software would become
> "Really Free", and discuss why GNOME and systemd don't meet those
> criteria.  Until that happens I don't see what sort of reply RMS could
> give.
>
> Most likely such a discussion should be moved to gnu-misc-discuss: I
> don't think it belongs on either of the current two mailing lists
> until/unless there's an actionable outcome.
>
> For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
> using the common meaning of the term.  Also, "lock-in" usually refers
> to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
> and systemd are certainly not lock-in.
> A non-commercial clause is directly opposed to the four freedoms (in
> particular freedom 0).  In fact a number of otherwise-could-be-free
> software licenses have been deemed non-free solely for this type of
> thing.  Unless I misunderstand what you mean by "non-commercial
> clause".
>
> I don't think it's appropriate to state that software that doesn't
> follow KISS can be considered non-free... how does one even measure
> that?  By whose definition is software not "simple"?  Many people would
> suggest that GCC, glibc, Emacs, or other flagship GNU packages are not
> "KISS".  Similarly, there's no concrete definition of "*NIX principles"
> that one can use.  Who will decide?  Again many people would suggest
> Emacs, with its "editor as an OS interface" construction, doesn't
> follow *NIX principles.  I don't see how these criteria can be used to
> measure software freedoms, other than by each person individually
> according to their own tastes.
>
> As with all free software, if someone feels that some software is not
> KISS (enough) or not *NIX (enough), they can avail themselves of their
> four freedoms and modify that software as they like, and distribute it
> to anyone else they like.
>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7235 bytes --]

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Paul Smith]

On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 21:32 +0300, Alexander Vdolainen wrote:
> > For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
> > using the common meaning of the term.  Also, "lock-in" usually refers
> > to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
> > and systemd are certainly not lock-in.
> 
> I'm afraid but I cannot agree with that. Actually with systemd design
> you have 'lock-in', because in some cases you need to modify a source
> code to support systemd (or you will face something like this -
> https://superuser.com/questions/1372963/how-do-i-keep-systemd-from-killing-my-tmux-sessions).

It's not lock-in because you don't have to use systemd.  You can take a
system that currently uses systemd and you can remove it and replace it
with something else.  It may be more or less effort, depending, but you
_can_ do it, without violating licenses or losing access to any of your
personal data.

If you consider systemd "lock-in" then you *must* consider something
like GNU libc "lock-in"; it's far more difficult to replace your libc
than it is to switch away from systemd!

> Finally, correct me if I wrong, but GNOME 3.8 and newer requires
> systemd to run, it's a lock-in isn't it ?

No, because you don't need to run GNOME.  You can't consider software
"lock-in" just because it requires some other software, as long as you
don't have to use either one.  And you can't consider some software
non-free just because it requires other free software: a large majority
of free programs out there rely on some other free libraries for
example.

Anyway, as I said this thread should be moved to gnu-misc-discuss.

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Alexander Vdolainen]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2024 bytes --]

Hi again,

On 10/14/19 9:59 PM, Jesse Gibbons wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 21:32 +0300, Alexander Vdolainen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/14/19 9:16 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 18:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>>
>> (skipped)
>>
>>> For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
>>> using the common meaning of the term.  Also, "lock-in" usually refers
>>> to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
>>> and systemd are certainly not lock-in.
>>
>> I'm afraid but I cannot agree with that. Actually with systemd design
>> you have 'lock-in', because in some cases you need to modify a source
>> code to support systemd (or you will face something like this -
>> https://superuser.com/questions/1372963/how-do-i-keep-systemd-from-killing-my-tmux-sessions).
>> Also, a lot of system daemons has eaten by systemd (and to make it works
>> some forks were created like eudev).
>> Finally, correct me if I wrong, but GNOME 3.8 and newer requires systemd
>> to run, it's a lock-in isn't it ?
> I'm assuming by GNOME you mean gnome-shell. Please let me know if I'm
> incorrect.

yep.

> 
> Guix has packaged gnome-shell 3.30.2 but has not packaged systemd.
> If systemd was a requirement for gnome-shell guix would have had to package
> systemd in order for gnome-shell to compile and/or work, by definition of
> requirement.
> gnome-shell builds and works just fine in guix.

it's a good point. But as I understood a special fork of logind (elogind
or something similar required).

> It follows that systemd is not a prerequisite for gnome-shell 3.30.2.

yep, you can emulate it somehow :) but, I'm just happy without gnome,
let's assume 'gnome case' isn't a lock-in.

> 
> Please consider this a friendly correction :)

ok, got it :)

> 

-- 
Alexander Vdolainen,
Evil contractor.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Alexander Vdolainen]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2042 bytes --]



On 10/14/19 10:11 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 21:32 +0300, Alexander Vdolainen wrote:
>>> For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
>>> using the common meaning of the term.  Also, "lock-in" usually refers
>>> to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
>>> and systemd are certainly not lock-in.
>>
>> I'm afraid but I cannot agree with that. Actually with systemd design
>> you have 'lock-in', because in some cases you need to modify a source
>> code to support systemd (or you will face something like this -
>> https://superuser.com/questions/1372963/how-do-i-keep-systemd-from-killing-my-tmux-sessions).
> 
> It's not lock-in because you don't have to use systemd.  You can take a
> system that currently uses systemd and you can remove it and replace it
> with something else.  It may be more or less effort, depending, but you
> _can_ do it, without violating licenses or losing access to any of your
> personal data.

Also I _can_ write a new kernel using existing code base...

> 
> If you consider systemd "lock-in" then you *must* consider something
> like GNU libc "lock-in"; it's far more difficult to replace your libc
> than it is to switch away from systemd!

uclibc, musl ... but GNU libc doesn't require software to make some
modifications - that's the point.

> 
>> Finally, correct me if I wrong, but GNOME 3.8 and newer requires
>> systemd to run, it's a lock-in isn't it ?
> 
> No, because you don't need to run GNOME.  You can't consider software
> "lock-in" just because it requires some other software, as long as you
> don't have to use either one.  And you can't consider some software
> non-free just because it requires other free software: a large majority
> of free programs out there rely on some other free libraries for
> example.

yep

> 
> Anyway, as I said this thread should be moved to gnu-misc-discuss.

ok, let's move it on.

> 

-- 
Alexander Vdolainen,
Evil contractor.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[marinus.savoritias]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1829 bytes --]

But that is achieved with forks of systemd tools and messing with the source code.
How does that make GNOME independent from Systemd?

Fannys

Oct 14, 2019, 20:59 by jgibbons2357@gmail.com:

> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 21:32 +0300, Alexander Vdolainen wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/14/19 9:16 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 18:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>>
>> (skipped)
>>
>> > For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
>> > using the common meaning of the term.  Also, "lock-in" usually refers
>> > to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
>> > and systemd are certainly not lock-in.
>>
>> I'm afraid but I cannot agree with that. Actually with systemd design
>> you have 'lock-in', because in some cases you need to modify a source
>> code to support systemd (or you will face something like this -
>> https://superuser.com/questions/1372963/how-do-i-keep-systemd-from-killing-my-tmux-sessions).
>> Also, a lot of system daemons has eaten by systemd (and to make it works
>> some forks were created like eudev).
>> Finally, correct me if I wrong, but GNOME 3.8 and newer requires systemd
>> to run, it's a lock-in isn't it ?
>>
> I'm assuming by GNOME you mean gnome-shell. Please let me know if I'm
> incorrect.
>
> Guix has packaged gnome-shell 3.30.2 but has not packaged systemd.
> If systemd was a requirement for gnome-shell guix would have had to package
> systemd in order for gnome-shell to compile and/or work, by definition of
> requirement.
> gnome-shell builds and works just fine in guix.
> It follows that systemd is not a prerequisite for gnome-shell 3.30.2.
>
> Please consider this a friendly correction :)
>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3937 bytes --]

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Stefan Huchler]

Hi,

isn't that what basically every Developer does? If I write a program and
it's elisp there is only as far as I know one interpreter and all libs I
use are also not replacable without rewriting code.

So is all my programmes I ever wrote also not Free software because it's
not based on some very primitive Kernel Systemcalls (that have to be
then not even linux specific right? Then 99% of GPL software out there
would not really be free software.

So that A only runs with B seems no good Definition you would have to
provide some other definition that makes Gnome here a special case.

I assume you would bring up that a DE is some sort of base level
software that is no application layer software in itself but part of a
Operation System, like the UI in Windows is also considered part of the
OS?

I could see that argument if Gnome would be the only grafical
environment for Linux in existence, and even then I wonder what's the
problem with rewriting it to run without systemd?

It's like saying a software that has not my wished Feature A / B / C is
not free software. But we don't meassure freedom in how much and which
features a software has.

Sorry to interject that discussion but maybe that is helpful?

<marinus.savoritias@tuta.io> writes:

> But that is achieved with forks of systemd tools and messing with the source code.
> How does that make GNOME independent from Systemd?
>
> Fannys
>
> Oct 14, 2019, 20:59 by jgibbons2357@gmail.com:
>
>  On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 21:32 +0300, Alexander Vdolainen wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>  On 10/14/19 9:16 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
>  > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 18:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>  > > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>  > > > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>
>  (skipped)
>
>  > For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
>  > using the common meaning of the term. Also, "lock-in" usually refers
>  > to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
>  > and systemd are certainly not lock-in.
>
>  I'm afraid but I cannot agree with that. Actually with systemd design
>  you have 'lock-in', because in some cases you need to modify a source
>  code to support systemd (or you will face something like this -
>  https://superuser.com/questions/1372963/how-do-i-keep-systemd-from-killing-my-tmux-sessions).
>  Also, a lot of system daemons has eaten by systemd (and to make it works
>  some forks were created like eudev).
>  Finally, correct me if I wrong, but GNOME 3.8 and newer requires systemd
>  to run, it's a lock-in isn't it ?
>
>  I'm assuming by GNOME you mean gnome-shell. Please let me know if I'm
>  incorrect.
>
>  Guix has packaged gnome-shell 3.30.2 but has not packaged systemd.
>  If systemd was a requirement for gnome-shell guix would have had to package
>  systemd in order for gnome-shell to compile and/or work, by definition of
>  requirement.
>  gnome-shell builds and works just fine in guix.
>  It follows that systemd is not a prerequisite for gnome-shell 3.30.2.
>
>  Please consider this a friendly correction :)

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

If systemD is be hard to replace, that is a kind of lock-in.  But it
isn't _vendor_ lock-in.  systemD, like most free software packages, is
not tied to any particular vendor.  Indeed, the usual concept of
"vendor" for free software is not applicable to free software at all.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Ricardo Wurmus]

This is off-topic on guix-devel.  Please remove guix-devel@gnu.org from
your replies.

--
Ricardo

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Svante Signell]

On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 22:41 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> If systemD is be hard to replace, that is a kind of lock-in.  But it
> isn't _vendor_ lock-in.  systemD, like most free software packages,
> is not tied to any particular vendor.  Indeed, the usual concept of
> "vendor" for free software is not applicable to free software at all.

Sorry Richard, but it is really a vendor lock-in. As you know there is
only one _upstream_ of systemd and that upstream is a company. Systemd
software is developed by that company, and as you also know is that
contributions, patches and bug reports coming from outside that company
are frown upon. People reporting issues are even met with hostility.

In case you have counterexamples of the above, please give links,
please!

Additionally, software system distributors, like Debian, are fully in
the hands of the upstream. They are merely users of systemd, trying to
tweak the code to create distributions.

I know that there are partial forks of systemd like eudev and elogind,
but such forks should not be needed if upstream created and documented
libraries and APIs so that third-party people could adopt and
contribute their (maybe complementary) software too. But that is not
happening, because if upstream would do that they'd loose their market
advantage.

In conclusion: systemd is a _vendor_ lock-in. Fortunately Guix/Shepherd
are not (yet??) using systemd, but they use e.g. eudev and elogind.

Thank you for your time!

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[marinus.savoritias]

I agree completely about Systemd. Corporate interests are too controling over it.
I don't know how we could remove elogind and eudev and the likes. GNOME doesn't seem to eager to even consider the forks, let alone an alternative implementation that Systemd.

Free Software should be community developed. There is no problem for companies to contribute but they absolutely should not be the the driven factor. Otherwise we have an hostile solution to forks like Systemd.

Fannys

Oct 15, 2019, 21:56 by svante.signell@gmail.com:

> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 22:41 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>>
>> If systemD is be hard to replace, that is a kind of lock-in.  But it
>> isn't _vendor_ lock-in.  systemD, like most free software packages,
>> is not tied to any particular vendor.  Indeed, the usual concept of
>> "vendor" for free software is not applicable to free software at all.
>>
>
> Sorry Richard, but it is really a vendor lock-in. As you know there is
> only one _upstream_ of systemd and that upstream is a company. Systemd
> software is developed by that company, and as you also know is that
> contributions, patches and bug reports coming from outside that company
> are frown upon. People reporting issues are even met with hostility.
>
> In case you have counterexamples of the above, please give links,
> please!
>
> Additionally, software system distributors, like Debian, are fully in
> the hands of the upstream. They are merely users of systemd, trying to
> tweak the code to create distributions.
>
> I know that there are partial forks of systemd like eudev and elogind,
> but such forks should not be needed if upstream created and documented
> libraries and APIs so that third-party people could adopt and
> contribute their (maybe complementary) software too. But that is not
> happening, because if upstream would do that they'd loose their market
> advantage.
>
> In conclusion: systemd is a _vendor_ lock-in. Fortunately Guix/Shepherd
> are not (yet??) using systemd, but they use e.g. eudev and elogind.
>
> Thank you for your time!
>

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > If systemD is be hard to replace, that is a kind of lock-in.  But it
   > isn't _vendor_ lock-in.  systemD, like most free software packages,
   > is not tied to any particular vendor.  Indeed, the usual concept of
   > "vendor" for free software is not applicable to free software at all.

   Sorry Richard, but it is really a vendor lock-in. As you know there is
   only one _upstream_ of systemd and that upstream is a company. Systemd
   software is developed by that company, and as you also know is that
   contributions, patches and bug reports coming from outside that company
   are frown upon. People reporting issues are even met with hostility.

Since it is free software, it would be easy for anyone to create
another such project.

   In conclusion: systemd is a _vendor_ lock-in. Fortunately Guix/Shepherd
   are not (yet??) using systemd, but they use e.g. eudev and elogind.

When Wolfgang and I designed GNU dmd (I don't know how much GNU
shepard has change from that, which is why I'm refering to it by its
original name), the idea was in some sense quite similar to how
systemd works.

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Jean Louis]

* Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> [2019-10-16 02:23]:
> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 22:41 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > 
> > If systemD is be hard to replace, that is a kind of lock-in.  But it
> > isn't _vendor_ lock-in.  systemD, like most free software packages,
> > is not tied to any particular vendor.  Indeed, the usual concept of
> > vendor for free software is not applicable to free software at all.
> 
> Sorry Richard, but it is really a vendor lock-in. As you know there is
> only one _upstream_ of systemd and that upstream is a company. Systemd
> software is developed by that company, and as you also know is that
> contributions, patches and bug reports coming from outside that company
> are frown upon. People reporting issues are even met with hostility.

systemd binaries are dependent on systemd and replaces programs that
did not have such dependencies. It is creating similar situation as
vendor lock-in is creating.

Some references:

- https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/

- http://judecnelson.blogspot.com/2014/09/systemd-biggest-fallacies.html

- https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/

- https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/systemd-it-keeps-getting-worse/
  where it says: "One of systemd’s main goals is to unify basic Linux
  configurations and service behaviors across all distributions."

There is my personal protest against the systemd's LGPL license. It is
service manager and not a special library that shall sacrifice freedom
in special cases.

Issue with the LGPL license is that me personally, for GNU system, I
would prefer GPL only license and not LGPL allowing proprietary
software into free software system distributions.

systemd does create control of few developers of systemd and vendors
of various GNU/Linux operating systems over its users.

systemd does create situation as "programmers controlling computing"
and not "users having freedom in their own computer".

That GNOME requires systemd is sad situation, it shall be independnet
of service manager.

Jean

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   systemd binaries are dependent on systemd and replaces programs that
   did not have such dependencies. It is creating similar situation as
   vendor lock-in is creating.

That is the case with any system, things depend on things -- what is
important is not to depend on non-free software.

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Jean Louis]

* Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> [2019-10-17 00:10]:
>    systemd binaries are dependent on systemd and replaces programs that
>    did not have such dependencies. It is creating similar situation as
>    vendor lock-in is creating.
> 
> That is the case with any system, things depend on things -- what is
> important is not to depend on non-free software.

Analogy is there Alfred. It cannot be ignored.

Why did Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre remove many "free software" packages
from its distribution but for reason that they are somehow infringing
on users' rights?

For example free software project could promote Facebook proprietary
network. Such would probably be removed from Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre
where I find that maintainers do take care of users' freedom.

In similar manner systemd is is making users be controlled by systemd
maintainers.

Jean

Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > > Sorry Richard, but it is really a vendor lock-in. As you know there is
  > > only one _upstream_ of systemd and that upstream is a company.

What vendor lock-in means is that there is only one version you can get
and you have to get it from a particular company, a vendor (meaning it has
sold you something).

It is possible to distribute modified versions of systemD.  I think
some already exist.  But even if they did not exist now, they could
exist.

Vendor lock-in in the true sense occurs only with nonfree software.
With a nonfree program, modified versions do not exist.

  > systemd binaries are dependent on systemd and replaces programs that
  > did not have such dependencies.

What does "systemD binaries" mean?
That expression would normally mean the binaries of systemD itself,
but it is clear you don't mean that.

  > There is my personal protest against the systemd's LGPL license. It is
  > service manager and not a special library that shall sacrifice freedom
  > in special cases.

How do other programs talk with systemD?  Do they link with it?
Communicate through pipes?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: (Really) Free Software future in the light of systemd

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1168 bytes --]

Stefan Huchler <stefan.huchler@mail.de> wrote:
> If I write a program and it's elisp there is only as far as I know one interpreter and all libs I use are also not replacable without rewriting code.

Even if put aside that we have at least two elisp interpreters alive: there is also GNU Guile; GNU Emacs is actually quite bad example to illustrate the systemd lock-in problem.  For many years it had had a divergent fork — XEmacs, and many non-core parts of GNU Emacs, like Gnus, still contain code that tries to be portable between them.

> So is all my programmes I ever wrote also not Free software because it's not based on some very primitive Kernel Systemcalls (that have to be then not even linux specific right?

While Linux® is indeed might be a very relevant example.  It’s a way more widespread; has software more critical that DE, like Wayland, that targets it exclusively; and since the advent of LLVM is basically the only effectively irreplaceable part of GNU left.

I wish open software (that how the standard-based software is properly called) advocates, which are now focused on systemd, would better turn their attention to Linux®.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: (Really) Free Software future in the light of systemd

[Jean Louis]

* Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> [2019-10-21 22:44]:
> While Linux® is indeed might be a very relevant example.  It’s a way
> more widespread; has software more critical that DE, like Wayland,
> that targets it exclusively; and since the advent of LLVM is
> basically the only effectively irreplaceable part of GNU left.

Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre project is preparing HyperbolaBSD. According
to: https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:main:nomenclatures --
It is planned to be based on the OpenBSD operating system with
implementations from different BSD systems and modularized like the
GNU operating system by using the hyperman utility for package
management and HyperRC as its default init system. Its kernel is
called as “HyperBK” and library C as “HyperBLibC”.

hyperman is the name chosen for the version of pacman while HyperRC is
the name chosen for the version of OpenRC. Both are planned to be a
framework (not a fork) to host local modifications and try to push
back Hyperbola changes whenever they are good for upstreams too.

The Hyper Berkeley Kernel (HyperBK) is a kernel which is being
developed and maintained by Hyperbola. It is a kernel planned to be
based on OpenBSD kernel, however with implementations from different
BSD kernels and deblobbed by Hyperbola.

The Hyper Berkeley C Library (HyperBLibC) is a C library which is
being developed and maintained by Hyperbola. It is a C library planned
to be based on OpenBSD C library, however with implementations from
different BSD C libraries.

While this may not be GNU system, Hyperbola team is planning to make
fully free OpenBSD based system after liberating that kernel from
blobs.

That is all good news!

Jean

Re: (Really) Free Software future in the light of systemd

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

Please forgive my delay.

Regarding HyperbolaBSD:
We do list non-GNU free distros in https://gnu.org/distros/.
The distro developers have to make the same pledge.

If they want this, they should contact us as it says in
https://gnu.org/distros/.

However, GNU package maintainers do not have a responsibility
to support a non-GNU system in any particular way.  That responsibility
is limited to the GNU system.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)