[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] help needed with savannah

From: Mario Castelan Castro
Subject: Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] help needed with savannah
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:25:56 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)

"help needed with savannah" in "address@hidden

Hello Alex.

I won't participate in discussion regarding what I "might" have done.
Nor I'm interested about your personal conflicts with the GNU philosphy
(I elaborate in the later below).  However there are some points I felt
compelled to answer:

> I don't know what else fits the description of "improved tooling".
> Just improving the admin pages can be seen as a small optimization of
> our tasks, but it doesn't lift the heavy burden of Savannah
> administration. At least not for me.

Free feel to use the tooling you find more comfortable to evaluate
projects, as long as the result is valid I see no possible objection.

> Nowhere in the article you link does it mention copyleft, since it
> does not speak about copyleft. Copyleft is an intentional restriction
> of freedom (compared to any BSD or Apache license) for the sake of
> promoting "share and share alike" in software. In copyleft, the
> recipient has some boundaries as to what they can do with the software
> they receive, in exchange for the four freedoms. I am sure you will be
> able to find links yourself and I don't want to turn this discussion
> into a link war.

I linked to that GNU essay because it addresses the "intentional
restriction of freedom" you'te talking about.  Quote:

  However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom
  to choose any license you want for software you write.  "We reject
  this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.

Please note this is part of the GNU philosphy.  The reason is not
arbitrarial, it's explained in the rest of the essay.  You're free to
disagree with the GNU philosphy and express your opinion but I think
that's outside the scope of this mailing list.

>>> My point is that checking for ideological purity is hard to do. But
>>> checking if some piece of software respects the four freedoms and some
>>> other bits of GNU terminology is easier to do automatically, making
>>> our task as admins much easier and more productive. An automatic check
>>> will never be 100% exact, but I prefer to let slip 10 mentions of
>>> "open source" because they are hyphenated than losing one valuable
>>> contributor.
>> Isn't this a false dichotomy?.  I see no reason to infer a contributor
>> kept (Not lost) will result in a project labeled as "open source".
> Whatever. In the end the truth of the matter is that evaluations are
> not being done and projects are being lost in the ether, because they
> require too much time.

We should distinguish between opinion and fact.  Projects are not
evaluated because nobody evaluates them.  That's what we already knew.
But we can only speculate about somebody else reasons to help or not
with this task.  Time is not the limiting factor for me.


Attachment: pgpzPtTT6cMFf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]