Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Alexander Vdolainen]

Hi,

On 10/14/19 9:40 PM, دانیال بهزادی wrote:
> No, it's not. Because you are free to change the source code and make it
> systemd-independant just like Gentoo or Devuan do.

It's not free, you still need to modify something, to maintain your own
fork etc ... At some point in future you will also need to rewrite and
redesign a lot of code because of systemd.

It's lock-in.

> 
> در October 14, 2019 6:32:13 PM UTC، Alexander Vdolainen <address@hidden>
> نوشت:
> 
>     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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ارسال از دستگاه اندرویدم با نامه ک-9. لطفاً کوتاهی متن را ببخشید

-- 
Alexander Vdolainen,
Evil contractor.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature