Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) <lefty shugendo org> wrote:
> I'm surprised that a suggestion that a specific site be singled out by GNOME
> for extra-special treatment, including warning messages, based on what
> amounts to unsourced gossip, is being treated with even a moment's serious
> consideration.
> This Facebook rumor seems to be not much different from last year's equally
> unsupported claim that Apple maintained a secret "back-door" in OS X, for
> which an apology was extracted from the FSF, presumably on the instigation
> of Apple's Legal department‹and I note, without much amusement, that the
> sole citation offered in support of this latest claim regarding Facebook
> leads to a non-existent web page.
> I do not believe that the GNOME Foundation should sign up to be in a
> position to have to apologize to Facebook, nor do I think it should be an
> official position of the GNOME Foundation that "using Facebook is a harmful
> practice".

With free software you would have the freedom of examining the social
networking software in place, if you were not satisfied with how your personal
data was being handled; then you could modify it and run your own derived

I think its clear that GNOME is a free software community/desktop and while
we dont need to throw poo at proprietary vendors or proprietary social
softwares, we at least need to represent free software, which is the one common
thing that holds us all together.

Therefore no it is not rude for a free software desktop to warn or alert about
times when the task you want to accomplish implies using proprietary software,
its expected that we represent the ethical values that hold us together as a

> If the GNOME community is hoping for better engagement with Facebook and the
> like, want to encourage their meaningful participation in our efforts, and
> hope to cultivate some appreciation on their part of community concerns,
> surely claiming that they're in the business of routinely breaking Federal
> law‹without compelling supporting evidence‹isn't the way to be going about
> it.

Im sorry in advance but this is a little overboard.

First, GNOME is not issuing any such statement or claims as far as I can see
and I have been following the thread, so lets not get carried away.

But more importantly, No I dont think we are in the business of changing our
attitude in order to gain the favour and attention of whichever corporation "x",
I think we are above that and people cooperate with us when its beneficial
for everyone involved, period.


> For my part, I don't believe that spreading defamatory gossip in the name of
> "freedom" is especially "ethical". Perhaps I've misunderstood Mr. Stallman's
> intention in making such an apparently irresponsible claim here.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org

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