Re: GNU project _does_ discriminate contributors by classes

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
>> if a contributor-to-be happens to be an employee, FSF does not trust his 
>> words about origin of his contribution,
>
> This seems reasonable to me in the USA.
> Given how complex employment contracts are, it's reasonable to ask for a 
> legal disclaimer from employers
> It's not about trusting the people involved...

...rather about having doubts whether they are intelligent enough to understand 
their own employment contract.  Much a relief! :-D

But thatʼs actually not the point, I never suggested that it is not reasonable. 
 I am not able to judge.  On the contrary, as I already said [1]:

| And that discrimination may be a well-justified choice — justified by the 
goal of GNU project: to develop a free operating system.  After all, nothing in 
it implies that the development should be welcoming for everyone.  Many, 
including probably the most widespread free program in the world — SQLite, do 
not welcome contributors at all.

What made me remind about it now, was not (only) the practice by itself, but 
(also) how it looked in context of the topic — a proposed ‘GNU social contract’:

| However, now @ludo@gnu.org is proposing fundamental change: to make ‘welcomes 
contributions’ a principle in itself along with ‘respects freedom’.  And it 
also may turn out to be a very good decision: bazaar development indeed proved 
to be quite effective.  Besides direct interests, a positive populist effect is 
expected too: many of those who would be proud to become GNU contributors, but 
are stopped by current discriminative policies, will be happy about that change.
|
| But are you all really calling for changes, or these ‘all and everyone’ are 
mere buzzwords to please angry SJWs out there?  If the latter, they sound 
hypocritical as hell, sorry.

[1] <d0eidcqu.321942@gmail.com>

> Also consider that some of us might be using the USA legal definition of 
> "class" here wrt discrimination:
>
>   https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/protected-class/
>
> Defining your own classes outside of those might lead to misunderstandings.

That’s really enlightening, thank you!  I was aware of the trend to overload 
definition of class:

| (sociology, countable) A social grouping, based on job, wealth, etc.
— https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/class#English

with arbitrary meanings, but till today I did not realize, that it drown in 
them completely, so that the original one might be passed for ‘my own’.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature