From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: P Subject: Re: Joint statement on the GNU Project Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 20:32:44 +0000 Message-ID: <3Eu4E-F8aPpRXQrn1QtCVNRziOcK9SGcpbKCNrsbT8B7khu794xQGeT6YmwPC0fHyoGL6IO950ei1M96vA_3AALQv5e9AKp3ACI7yCbjfEw=@protonmail.com> References: <87ftk4hbhu.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhibiqka.fsf@gnu.org> <8736g3k4hd.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <20191010040011.GU20430@protected.rcdrun.com> <87pnj5i3u2.fsf@elephly.net> <20191010051730.GA27628@protected.rcdrun.com> <87d0f4y8qz.fsf@gnu.org> <3e7d86bcb247619ecabf19318e68b576ad5da291.camel@gmail.com> <550194FB-102B-4796-974A-18028C03848A@gnu.support> Reply-To: P Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44450) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iIf7L-000640-Aj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:33:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iIf7K-0002Aw-43 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:32:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <550194FB-102B-4796-974A-18028C03848A@gnu.support> 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: Jean Louis Cc: "svante.signell@gmail.com" , =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= , "guix-devel@gnu.org" , "help-guix@gnu.org" , GNU Guix maintainers =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me= ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 On Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:22 PM, Jean Louis wrote: > > Your problem is that you published this statement to guix-devel. If you > > don't mind, I'll forward your mail to gnu-system-discuss, which is the > > appropriate mailing list. > > I don't mind. > > Guix developers published biased and factless defamation of RMS on Guix p= ages. This is what they actually said: "GNU is not fulfilling its mission when th= e behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach o= ut to." Which is true, and the funny thing is, it's true by your own admission as w= ell. You said that people attacked RMS for his statement. What is that if n= ot alienation? I've seen people publicly state that they'll cancel their membership and do= nate to Conservancy instead of FSF. And there is this thread by a free software developer who helped draft GPLv= 3 [1]. As far as I can tell, you have not disproven those statements, so I can onl= y conclude that you either were not aware of them, which would mean that yo= u did not actually look into the problem as deeply as you would want us to = believe, or that you were aware of them, but dismissed them as insignifican= t, which would reflect badly on your value system. And even before this incident, I've seen people say they don't want to get = into free software because of Stallman's behaviour and because people defen= d him from any criticism. Don't put Stallman on a pedestal, he is not perfect, and just because he fo= unded GNU doesn't mean he should lead it forever or that he should have fin= al say in everything. ps.: sorry for writing this on the devel list, but there is so much vitriol= against the core devs here already that I felt like I had to counterbalanc= e it. [1]: https://pleroma.site/notice/9nh9bWH6RbrQinMp1M