Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 19:48 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:
Hey Diego,

> El dom, 28-02-2010 a las 00:49 +0100, Philip Van Hoof escribió:
> > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:32 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:


> > I wish you and the FSF would focus more on user rights and licensing of
> > (meta)data coming from websites like Facebook, and that you'd focus less
> > on demeaning insinuations to GNOME programmers that they know not about
> > ethics.

> I don't think Richard meant any of this. Being the one he replied to, I
> think he's reply was perfectly well behaved and his intentions the best
> of all to remind us that we should always try to promote Free Software. 

Being the one who replied to Richard, I don't think that I tried to
insinuate that Richard's behavior while replying to your E-mail was bad.

I don't understand why you try to rephrase it like that. However:

  Richard *has* insinuated that GNOME programmers "forget about ethics
  like freedom", in this discussion thread. Let me illustrate:

  On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:27:21 -0500 Richard Stallman wrote:

  "The values that programmers often forget are the ethical values such
   as freedom."

When you talk about programmers within a context like a GNOME mailing
list, you're actually targeting GNOME programmers. Aren't you? Why not?

In case that wasn't the intent, I asked not to be ambiguous.

Is that somehow unfair? How then?

If not, then why was that remark made when we're already the most "free"
desktop in existence? With "free" being FSF's definition of free.

> And I think we all agree that our precise personal beliefs might be
> different but that as a whole we all enjoy Free Software and its
> consequences in society and technology. 

I enjoy wikipedia; wikipedia is about freed knowledge.

I enjoy opensource software; I can improve my skills by being involved
in its development. I also enjoy the freed knowledge of it.

I don't know about "free software". Even after more than a decade it's
still an alien term for me. I know it is "opensource" for as far as I'm
concerned. And that's all I care about.

(yes, I read most of FSF's webpages, it's still alien)

I don't need the demeaning ethics-teachings that I should somehow be
religiously in love with this "free software" stuff. Why?

Either it helps me improve my skills, or it doesn't. Either it frees
knowledge, or it doesn't. Free software does both, good.

Free software does because it does what any "opensource" does. But there
it stops. Please stop idealizing it as something better. It's not.

> So it doesn't sound out of place to remind us about it.

It's out of place to insinuate that GNOME developers forget about
ethical values. Or that anybody does.

I actually do spend a significant amount of my life's time thinking
about philosophy; I don't accept that I'm unethical.

That claim is, for me, a direct insult; I don't accept it.

> IMHO talking about Facebook and who should demand them to free info is a
> bit out of place here. Please let's not diverge the thread into that or
> into a battle about how much we should promote Free Software or non Free
> alternatives.

The freedoms about data collected by websites like Facebook is likely
the most important discussion of our generation.

> I think the topic is clear for all of us: Free Software rocks

I can see you have an ideology. That's fine for you. I respectfully
disassociate myself from simplistic slogans, though.

> and we are trying to lure people who don't use it yet into using it
> so they can enjoy the same freedoms we do. Let's keep changing the
> world :-).

Ideology makes people blind for reality.

> Friendly and lovingly calling for the end of this branch of the thread,

Up to them.



Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org

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