Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/12/09 5:34 AM, "Richard Stallman" <rms gnu org> wrote:
> I think GNOME activities should not grant legitimacy to non-free
> software.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not to impose it on unwilling others.

> This is a minimal form of support for the cause of software
> users' freedom -- minimal in the sense that anything less would hardly
> be support.

Again, in your own terms, perhaps, but not (it seems) in the terms of the
actual contributors to Planet GNOME. No one (other than yourself) is calling
for "rules" governing contributions to the Planet, and no one can
(apparently) point at any actual instances of the sort of thing you claim to
be attempting to address here. Bottom line: Planet GNOME does not exist for
the sake of "supporting" your, or the FSF's, agenda, and you're attempting
to solve a non-existent "problem".

> You're also stretching the term "censorship" and related terms to an
> area where it does not pertain.  For an organization to stand by its
> values, and not say things which conflict with those values, is not
> censorship.

Fine. We can simply call it "prior restraint" if you prefer, then. The irony
of your attempts to throttle people in the name of "freedom" is a marvel to

> I would not trade my freedom for convenience like that.

No one's demanded that you do so, happily for you. Nor is it a question of
"convenience", Mr. Stallman: it happens that it's my _job_. It's one of the
things I get _paid_ to do. That's where the cash for things like my FSF-E
Fellowship, EFF membership, Creative Commons membership, etc., come from,

I wouldn't trade your _idea_ of "freedom" for that, as I happen to quite
enjoy what I do. (I suppose that a complete inability to do film editing,
since there's no "free" equivalent of Final Cut, and the consequent failure
to do what I'm paid to do, followed by my subsequent dismissal and
unemployment would indeed constitute an "inconvenience" for me, yes. Few of
us enjoy the luxury of being president-for-life of some foundation or

> However the
> issue here is not what you use, or what would I use; it is what GNOME
> should advocate.

The Planet is not "GNOME" and it is not an "advocacy" organ; it doesn't
"advocate" anything, other than its various contributors' various interests
and activities, whatever they happen to be. You have utterly misunderstood
its purpose: to provide a window into the activities of people involved in
GNOME; not just the "free software" activities; not just the activities of
which the FSF chooses to approve.

> Thus, GNOME should not present a program as legitimate if it requires
> users to choose in that way.

You're conflating "GNOME" and "Planet GNOME" in an unreasonable fashion.

One more time: Planet GNOME is not presenting anything as anything. It does
not have an editorial stance to espouse, nor a political position to
promote. It's about people, not polemics.

That the FSF would attempt to impose its own politics on the multiple,
various and diverse contributors to the Planet--among which it must be noted
that you do not number, Mr. Stallman--demonstrates that the FSF has no
problem with monoculture, just so long as it's the monoculture the FSF

As I've said, the GNOME Foundation doesn't support, endorse or stand behind
any posting on Planet GNOME, and no one seems to be under the impression
that it does, other than, possibly, yourself. The Planet, in my experience,
seems to be quite amply self-policing; in any case, no one's asked for
"help" in this area.

If you, or the FSF, feel a need to express your opinions on Planet GNOME,
get a blog up and have it syndicated there, just like everyone else. Please
don't attempt to impose policy in an area where you don't even participate.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]