4 ms·

Alright, so where is that line drawn? RMS is the project lead, but it's a community project and at some point the consensus will be that he is just wrong. Cle

Alright, so where is that line drawn? RMS is the project lead, but it's a community project and at some point the consensus will be that he is just wrong. Clearly that line must exist somewhere, or eglibc would never have been. But the existence of a fork isn't the minimum point since that takes quite a lot to overcome the inertia of forming a new project. The point I keep coming back to is: What is the purpose of the documentation? What goal does it achieve?

nurettin 8y ago
The benefits of the doc is purely subjective (obviously) so asking what purpose it serves is a dick move. And it specifically says not to remove. RMS only objected when they tried to introduce a change he specifically said not to remove. Calling this an unwarranted exercise in authority is also a dick move. It isn't even a code change. Let's talk priorities: glibc could see improvements preventing y2038 bugs and fuzzing, but we fret over a joke. Also there is no evidence that the joke could be traumatic to anyone.
esrauch 8y ago
What is the point of the project? What goal does it achieve? There was a gcc frontend/backend clean architecture dispute: some wanted it so that gcc could be used for more things that clang is being used for. RMS argued against it, on the basis that GCC technical architecture should deliberately avoid it working with proprietary non-GPL backends. The official story is that a technically worse compiler than loses market share is still superior for the FSF goals of pushing free software: they are willing to accept people moving to clang to avoid GCC from being the front half of a non-free compiler. That goal is inherently political. It isn't obvious whether drawing attention to harmful suppression of information by the government is also in the projects mandate, but it is obvious that the projects mandate isn't just to make the best technical and professional result. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00209.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00209.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00178.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00178.html
- da_chicken 8y ago
  Those arguments don't work. Just because a goal of the project is an inherently political one doesn't mean that any outcome or action even remotely political is inherently the goal of the project. That's an absurd hasty generalization. Further, just because one of the overall goals of the project is political doesn't mean that every goal of the project is political. That's a composition fallacy.
  - esrauch 8y ago
    What arguments don't work? The truth is that FSF is primarily a political organization. It is more of a political organization than any other open source foundation, eg they do things like refuse to endorse any OS that distributes any piece of non-free (read: GPL) software. They advocate against non-GPL open source as harmful. They guide their projects to be technically worse if it supports the political mission. There is confusion here about what Stallmans role even is since he isn't an active technical contributor: his role to make sure the political vision is being enforced in the projects under FSF/GNU stewardship and that is exactly what he is doing here. Basically, if something is not advancing the goals of the FSF then it shouldn't be a part of the FSF. It isn't news that the goal of the FSF isn't to make high quality software and they just think free software is the pragmatically best model to achieve that: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-pract...
    - da_chicken 8y ago
      > The truth is that FSF is primarily a political organization. So what? That doesn't matter. What part of the FSF[0] or GNU[1] project suggests that abortion is an issue relevant to their mission or goals? Why is abortion a software freedom issue? How about we say RMS does adopt it. Does that benefit the other stated goals of the organizations? How? What happens when the FSF runs a fund raiser, and they hear, "I'd love to give to your organization because I support free software ideals, but I can't because I disagree with your stance on abortion." Does that benefit free software? What happens when they're working with legislators on bills to re-enforce net neutrality, and the legislator says, "I'd love to help you on net neutrality, but I can't. My constituents are overwhelmingly pro-life, and I've gotten hundreds of voters contacting me since Fox News ran a piece on how your organization is pushing this bill to promote pro-choice laws. The National Right to Life and National Pro-Life Alliance have been calling to lobby against this bill as well. I'm sorry, but it seems that people think net neutrality is a pro-choice issue." Does that benefit free software? So, is the FSF and GNU willing to sacrifice their software freedom goals in order to further pro-choice goals? Should they be? 0: https://www.fsf.org/about/ https://www.fsf.org/about/ 1: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.html
geezerjay 8y ago
> but it's a community project and at some point the consensus will be that he is just wrong. No, that's just your prejudice talking. The consensus can just as well be that RMS has a point and that a lone maintainer has no legitimacy to dictate policy, let alone override executive decisions. RMS is the founder of many GNU projects and is also the president of the FSF. Just because some dude has access to a repository of a FSF project that doesn't give him the right to hijack the project to suit his fancy. It's a FSF project and the project's driving policy is set by the FSF.

nurettin 8y ago

The benefits of the doc is purely subjective (obviously) so asking what purpose it serves is a dick move. And it specifically says not to remove. RMS only objected when they tried to introduce a change he specifically said not to remove. Calling this an unwarranted exercise in authority is also a dick move. It isn't even a code change. Let's talk priorities: glibc could see improvements preventing y2038 bugs and fuzzing, but we fret over a joke. Also there is no evidence that the joke could be traumatic to anyone.

esrauch 8y ago

What is the point of the project? What goal does it achieve? There was a gcc frontend/backend clean architecture dispute: some wanted it so that gcc could be used for more things that clang is being used for. RMS argued against it, on the basis that GCC technical architecture should deliberately avoid it working with proprietary non-GPL backends. The official story is that a technically worse compiler than loses market share is still superior for the FSF goals of pushing free software: they are willing to accept people moving to clang to avoid GCC from being the front half of a non-free compiler. That goal is inherently political. It isn't obvious whether drawing attention to harmful suppression of information by the government is also in the projects mandate, but it is obvious that the projects mandate isn't just to make the best technical and professional result. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00209.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00209.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00178.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00178.html

da_chicken 8y ago
Those arguments don't work. Just because a goal of the project is an inherently political one doesn't mean that any outcome or action even remotely political is inherently the goal of the project. That's an absurd hasty generalization. Further, just because one of the overall goals of the project is political doesn't mean that every goal of the project is political. That's a composition fallacy.
- esrauch 8y ago
  What arguments don't work? The truth is that FSF is primarily a political organization. It is more of a political organization than any other open source foundation, eg they do things like refuse to endorse any OS that distributes any piece of non-free (read: GPL) software. They advocate against non-GPL open source as harmful. They guide their projects to be technically worse if it supports the political mission. There is confusion here about what Stallmans role even is since he isn't an active technical contributor: his role to make sure the political vision is being enforced in the projects under FSF/GNU stewardship and that is exactly what he is doing here. Basically, if something is not advancing the goals of the FSF then it shouldn't be a part of the FSF. It isn't news that the goal of the FSF isn't to make high quality software and they just think free software is the pragmatically best model to achieve that: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-pract...
  - da_chicken 8y ago
    > The truth is that FSF is primarily a political organization. So what? That doesn't matter. What part of the FSF[0] or GNU[1] project suggests that abortion is an issue relevant to their mission or goals? Why is abortion a software freedom issue? How about we say RMS does adopt it. Does that benefit the other stated goals of the organizations? How? What happens when the FSF runs a fund raiser, and they hear, "I'd love to give to your organization because I support free software ideals, but I can't because I disagree with your stance on abortion." Does that benefit free software? What happens when they're working with legislators on bills to re-enforce net neutrality, and the legislator says, "I'd love to help you on net neutrality, but I can't. My constituents are overwhelmingly pro-life, and I've gotten hundreds of voters contacting me since Fox News ran a piece on how your organization is pushing this bill to promote pro-choice laws. The National Right to Life and National Pro-Life Alliance have been calling to lobby against this bill as well. I'm sorry, but it seems that people think net neutrality is a pro-choice issue." Does that benefit free software? So, is the FSF and GNU willing to sacrifice their software freedom goals in order to further pro-choice goals? Should they be? 0: https://www.fsf.org/about/ https://www.fsf.org/about/ 1: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.html

geezerjay 8y ago

> but it's a community project and at some point the consensus will be that he is just wrong. No, that's just your prejudice talking. The consensus can just as well be that RMS has a point and that a lone maintainer has no legitimacy to dictate policy, let alone override executive decisions. RMS is the founder of many GNU projects and is also the president of the FSF. Just because some dude has access to a repository of a FSF project that doesn't give him the right to hijack the project to suit his fancy. It's a FSF project and the project's driving policy is set by the FSF.