[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Need of ‘stubborn governance’
From: |
Dmitry Alexandrov |
Subject: |
Re: Need of ‘stubborn governance’ |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:15:49 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
ams@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) wrote:
> Excuse me, do GNU actually have precedents when the ‘stubborn
> governance’ was proved to be needed to keep things free?
>
> Readline, Objective-C backend, not allowing propietery hackery with GCC,
> GPLv3 and Tivioization, Emacs and plugins, come to mind.
Thank you. However, Iʼd appreciate if your answer were more verbose. I am not
so good at history.
> Emacs and plugins
Refers to the question whether there should be a formal API to denote that the
library is under GNU GPL-compatible terms, right?
> not allowing propietery hackery with GCC
Refers to the suggestion to make GCC licence more permissive to compete with
LLVM better, right?
> Objective-C backend
Refers to events of 30 years ago, right?
Whatʼs about Readline and Tivoization, though?
> IIRC, @ludo@gnu.org and Co. were initially going to reserve ‘Guix’ for
> package manager only, while calling the system distribution ‘GNU’ —
> simply ‘the GNU’
> Being made that way, despite all the best intentions they had, it would be
> obviously perceived as a statement “we are the proper and pureblood GNU,
> while Debian and other GNU distributions are impostorsâ€, so RMS, of course,
> strongly opposed that.
>
> How such an issue would be supposed to be resolved with a
> ‘non-stubborn’ governance?
>
> To understand a opposition, one needs to know the why. Taking your statement
> at face value as to what might have been said, that is, calling other free
> systems for "lesser systems" would be unfriendly and unkind, so why do that?
> That in it self would be a good reason to strongly object to such a statement
> since it would alienate people working on other free systems.
>
> But now knowing the precise words used, making any fair analysis of the
> decision is hard, and a simply way to find a false reasoning is to call it
> "stubborn" or similar.
Sorry, I re-read this several times, yet still do not follow. Could you recap
it in a simpler language?
P. S. Are you aware, that your MUA munges multibyte mail?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: A GNU "social contract", (continued)
- Re: A GNU "social contract", Ruben Safir, 2019/10/28
- Re: A GNU "social contract", Alfred M. Szmidt, 2019/10/31
- Re: A GNU “social contract”?, Ruben Safir, 2019/10/28
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2019/10/27
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Samuel Thibault, 2019/10/27
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2019/10/27
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Samuel Thibault, 2019/10/27
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2019/10/28
- Re: Need of ‘stubborn governance’ (was: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization), Dmitry Alexandrov, 2019/10/28
- Re: Need of ‘stubborn governance’ (was: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2019/10/28
- Re: Need of ‘stubborn governance’,
Dmitry Alexandrov <=
- Re: Need of ‘stubborn governance’, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2019/10/31
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Samuel Thibault, 2019/10/27
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Jean Louis, 2019/10/28
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Jean Louis, 2019/10/28
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Jean Louis, 2019/10/28
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Florian Weimer, 2019/10/24
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2019/10/27
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Samuel Thibault, 2019/10/27
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2019/10/27
- Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization, Samuel Thibault, 2019/10/27