10:38 a.m.
Hi,
Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> skribis:
On Tue, 2021-04-20 at 19:03 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > > The FSF supports GNU development primarily in three ways: by taking care
> > > of copyright assignments (for the few GNU packages that require it), as
> > > a [fiscal sponsor](https://www.fsf.org/working-together/fund) for a few
> > > projects, and by providing infrastructure like
> > > [Savannah](https://savannah.gnu.org). For the most part, the FSF
> > > “supports GNU development” in the same way that Microsoft “supports” the
> > > development of projects hosted on GitHub.
[...]
How about:
The FSF supports GNU development primarily in three ways: As legal
guardian (copyright assignments, acting on legal disputes or legal
representation), as a [fiscal sponsor](
https://www.fsf.org/working-together/fund) for some GNU packages, and
and by providing infrastructure like [Savannah (
https://savannah.gnu.org).
Sounds good to me, please push!
I liked having “for the few packages that require it” (again because of
the widespread belief that all GNU packages require copyright
assignment). I also feel that the “legal guardian” bit is overrated
(it’s mostly theoretical AFAIK). But these are minor issues, not a
blocker for me.
> > Please just drop the Microsoft/GitHub analogy. The analogy
isn't really
> > accurate. It doesn't really make things more clear, just invites
> > speculation how that analogy really works.
>
> For context, there’s a widespread belief that somehow, the FSF funds GNU
> development, which can even be seen in free software circles:
>
> One project participant [Guix] in Outreachy's May 2021 round planned
> to rely on FSF funding.
>
> https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/23/outreachy-fsf/
>
> Guix funds are at the FSF, but Guix is not “relying on FSF funding”.
Right, but that is mixing the FSF being the fiscal sponsor for the GNU
project as a whole, with it not really working because of previous
leadership issues, so individual GNU packages working around that by
setting up their individual funding.
I think saying that “the FSF is the fiscal sponsor of GNU as a whole” is
inaccurate at best. I think we should not contribute to that confusion.
> The FSF fundraising campaigns also fuel the confusion, because
they
> often mention support of the GNU Project in some way. The analogy above
> is one way to acknowledge that yes, the FSF helps GNU development, but
> “for the most part” it does that in a way comparable to Microsoft.
>
> That said, if there’s consensus, I have nothing against dropping the
> GitHub analogy; I thought it would be helpful but we can do without.
Please do, because I find it really inaccurate/misleading and it just
invites speculation what is really meant. And it makes the answer
shorter, which is always good.
Done!
* Is the GNU Assembly and initiative of an existing Free Software
organization or is it sponsored by a specific corporation?
No, it’s not! The Assembly was founded by GNU maintainers on personal
title and receives no support, financial or otherwise, from any
organization at this time. At the moment the Assembly uses the
resources of the individuals listed. We will publicly list anybody or
any organization that provides us with resources to be completely
transparent.
LGTM, please push!
Thanks,
Ludo’.