6 ms·

The attitude that comes across in this message... this is the problem with GNU and that whole sector of the OSS community that seems to follow the 'Stallman' wa

by jheriko 10y ago

The attitude that comes across in this message... this is the problem with GNU and that whole sector of the OSS community that seems to follow the 'Stallman' way. "you aren't allowed your freedom because <incomprehensible jibberish>" from people who advocate software freedom is a total headfuck

apetresc 10y ago
What freedom is being withheld by the FSF in this message? They're granting the maintainer's wishes to a T. The maintainer even explicitly requested that the FSF make a public announcement about it.
- fsf-fen-sucks 10y ago
  They are publicly passive aggressively attacking Leah, and simply saying they won because FSF can't win and gave up. But lets fire some shots of more drama off at them on the way out the door.
- jheriko 10y ago
  its the tone and attitude, not the literal interpretation of the statement nor what has happened. 'once your project is under the GNU aegis its there for life' - its fair enough to make that decision, but the result here is not respecting the ideal that very many people have about having a freedom to do what you want with 'your stuff', and what constitutes 'your stuff' if you don't particularly care for ideals of ownership or materialism then this isn't so objectionable. it makes a lot of sense, because then you don't even see the project as 'yours' and doing so is obviously counter to the ideals of the GNU project and FSF. however, the sad practical reality of the world is that most people care a great deal about these kinds of things - its a part of why there is so much proprietary software, and also why many places i have worked forbid GPL dependencies, often in a list of "free software licenses we can't allow in dependencies" along with some statement about why - which is usually about how its 'infectious' nature means that it can't be used without forcing other parts of a product to be made into GPL software - an unacceptable price to pay, because the freedom to keep things private is considered as being so valuable. "you can use our free (as in speech, not beer) software freely, but provided that you sacrifice your freedom of ownership on your own software" this is another one of those kinds of statements i generalised as with "you aren't allowed your freedom because <incomprehensible jibberish>" i don't think its a big leap to consider that sort of statement mind boggling from a philosophical standpoint - you want to advocate freedom with something that curtails freedom? its the same principle with the idea that GNU projects are somehow owned by GNU, and that this is irreversible. again, its trying to advocate the philosophy by doing something that is counter to it. now, i don't consider the maintainer in this case to be in the right. they should have been aware that this is the nature of GNU projects. i also consider her attitude to be so far out of touch with reality and overly-self-entitled that it is a little disturbing... but back to the point, i don't roll in these circles and even i am aware of this philosophy for GNU projects... but aside from that leah should have learned what her decision would mean before making it.

by jheriko 10y ago

apetresc 10y ago

What freedom is being withheld by the FSF in this message? They're granting the maintainer's wishes to a T. The maintainer even explicitly requested that the FSF make a public announcement about it.

fsf-fen-sucks 10y ago
They are publicly passive aggressively attacking Leah, and simply saying they won because FSF can't win and gave up. But lets fire some shots of more drama off at them on the way out the door.
jheriko 10y ago
its the tone and attitude, not the literal interpretation of the statement nor what has happened. 'once your project is under the GNU aegis its there for life' - its fair enough to make that decision, but the result here is not respecting the ideal that very many people have about having a freedom to do what you want with 'your stuff', and what constitutes 'your stuff' if you don't particularly care for ideals of ownership or materialism then this isn't so objectionable. it makes a lot of sense, because then you don't even see the project as 'yours' and doing so is obviously counter to the ideals of the GNU project and FSF. however, the sad practical reality of the world is that most people care a great deal about these kinds of things - its a part of why there is so much proprietary software, and also why many places i have worked forbid GPL dependencies, often in a list of "free software licenses we can't allow in dependencies" along with some statement about why - which is usually about how its 'infectious' nature means that it can't be used without forcing other parts of a product to be made into GPL software - an unacceptable price to pay, because the freedom to keep things private is considered as being so valuable. "you can use our free (as in speech, not beer) software freely, but provided that you sacrifice your freedom of ownership on your own software" this is another one of those kinds of statements i generalised as with "you aren't allowed your freedom because <incomprehensible jibberish>" i don't think its a big leap to consider that sort of statement mind boggling from a philosophical standpoint - you want to advocate freedom with something that curtails freedom? its the same principle with the idea that GNU projects are somehow owned by GNU, and that this is irreversible. again, its trying to advocate the philosophy by doing something that is counter to it. now, i don't consider the maintainer in this case to be in the right. they should have been aware that this is the nature of GNU projects. i also consider her attitude to be so far out of touch with reality and overly-self-entitled that it is a little disturbing... but back to the point, i don't roll in these circles and even i am aware of this philosophy for GNU projects... but aside from that leah should have learned what her decision would mean before making it.