5:01 p.m.
Hello GNU hackers!
Changes to the Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG¹) are being
discussed on the private gnu-prog-discuss mailing list. To me, this
raises a couple of concerns regarding the process:
1. several distros are committed to the FSDG and I think it’d be nice
to give them a chance to chime in;
2. it looks as if the changes could get in without the FSF’s
involvement, although the web page states it is maintained by the
FSF.
As co-maintainer of GNU Guix, I see a third concern (speaking only for
myself):
3. Guix is committed to following the FSDG, but OTOH this process is
at odds with the transparency and decision making by consensus Guix
has always sought.
I suppose few people on this Assembly are directly involved in a
distribution, but I figured my concerns could equally apply to other
processes and projects.
(I figured it’s also a way to say hi! to all of you. :-))
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
¹ https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
10:10 p.m.
Hi Ludo,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:01:47PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Changes to the Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG¹) are
being
discussed on the private gnu-prog-discuss mailing list. To me, this
raises a couple of concerns regarding the process:
1. several distros are committed to the FSDG and I think it’d be nice
to give them a chance to chime in;
2. it looks as if the changes could get in without the FSF’s
involvement, although the web page states it is maintained by the
FSF.
As co-maintainer of GNU Guix, I see a third concern (speaking only for
myself):
3. Guix is committed to following the FSDG, but OTOH this process is
at odds with the transparency and decision making by consensus Guix
has always sought.
I suppose few people on this Assembly are directly involved in a
distribution, but I figured my concerns could equally apply to other
processes and projects.
Thanks for raising this issue. Doing such processes in secret on
non-public private lists without input from the actual stakeholders
seems odd indeed.
Last year we already raised this issue in our open letter the the FSF:
https://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2019/12/27/proposals-for-the-new-gnu-...
We understand that traditionally the FSF has used the gnu.org
domain not just for the GNU project, but also to facilitate other
programs of the FSF. We would like to see a better separation
between pages maintained by GNU volunteers and FSF staff
maintained pages for other FSF programs.
Specifically we like to give pages maintained by the FSF Licensing
and Compliance Lab like the Free Software Definition, License
List, Free System Distribution Guidelines and other FSF Compliance
programs on which the larger Free Software community relies a
special status or redirect them to the fsf.org domain.
Lets raise this issue again. The FSF finally has a new president, so
hopefully they are a bit more responsive this time around:
https://www.fsf.org/news/geoffrey-knauth-elected-free-software-foundation...
(I figured it’s also a way to say hi! to all of you. :-))
Yes, good to see some activity on this list again. The pandemic was
not good for my, and I assume others, enthousiasm. Things are a bit
better around here now. But life is far from normal. Hope others are
doing well.
BTW. This week various GNU Toolchain people are coming together using
a fully free BBB platform. https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/linuxplumbers2020
So people might be a little busy right now.
>
> ¹ https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
>
12:57 p.m.
Hi Mark!
Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> skribis:
Last year we already raised this issue in our open letter the the
FSF:
https://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2019/12/27/proposals-for-the-new-gnu-...
We understand that traditionally the FSF has used the gnu.org
domain not just for the GNU project, but also to facilitate other
programs of the FSF. We would like to see a better separation
between pages maintained by GNU volunteers and FSF staff
maintained pages for other FSF programs.
Specifically we like to give pages maintained by the FSF Licensing
and Compliance Lab like the Free Software Definition, License
List, Free System Distribution Guidelines and other FSF Compliance
programs on which the larger Free Software community relies a
special status or redirect them to the fsf.org domain.
Lets raise this issue again. The FSF finally has a new president, so
hopefully they are a bit more responsive this time around:
https://www.fsf.org/news/geoffrey-knauth-elected-free-software-foundation...
Yes, that makes sense! Thanks for reminding us of the letter.
> (I figured it’s also a way to say hi! to all of you. :-))
Yes, good to see some activity on this list again. The pandemic was
not good for my, and I assume others, enthousiasm. Things are a bit
better around here now. But life is far from normal. Hope others are
doing well.
BTW. This week various GNU Toolchain people are coming together using
a fully free BBB platform. https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/linuxplumbers2020
So people might be a little busy right now.
I hope you folks are having a good time with LP and getting a warm
feeling of being together again, even if remotely.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
4:17 a.m.
Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> writes:
Thanks for raising this issue. Doing such processes in secret on
non-public private lists without input from the actual stakeholders
seems odd indeed.
Just a data point vis-a-vis that - RMS just posted this line:
RMS> After this, I will see what the distro maintainers say about the change.
10:50 a.m.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:17:53PM -0600, Mark Galassi wrote:
Just a data point vis-a-vis that - RMS just posted this line:
RMS> After this, I will see what the distro maintainers say about the change.
Thanks for the news! Notwithstanding the question who is responsible for
what (see my previous message), it would be nice if this discussion could be
held in public, as pointed out by Ludovic. But it can then be organised by
the distributions on their (potentially public) communication channels.
Andreas
7:34 a.m.
Hi Mark,
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:17:53PM -0600, Mark Galassi wrote:
Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> writes:
> Thanks for raising this issue. Doing such processes in secret on
> non-public private lists without input from the actual stakeholders
> seems odd indeed.
Just a data point vis-a-vis that - RMS just posted this line:
RMS> After this, I will see what the distro maintainers say about the change.
Thanks for letting us know. Do you happen to know who these FSDG
maintainers are and how they are contacted? And is this consultation
process open?
Thanks,
Mark
8:13 a.m.
> RMS> After this, I will see what the distro maintainers say
about the change.
Thanks for letting us know. Do you happen to know who these FSDG
maintainers are and how they are contacted? And is this consultation
process open?
The process so far was a thread on the gnu-prog-discuss mailing list.
This is *not* gnu-community-private, and I think it has a lot of free
software developers.
I don't know what approach he will use to discuss it with distro
maintainers. If you want I can try to find out.
btw: the info for gnu-prog-discuss is below. It looks like you could
request to join.
List-Id: Internal discussion list for GNU Maintainers
<gnu-prog-discuss.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/gnu-prog-discuss>;,
<mailto:gnu-prog-discuss-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/private/gnu-prog-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:gnu-prog-discuss@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gnu-prog-discuss-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-prog-discuss>;,
<mailto:gnu-prog-discuss-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
9:53 a.m.
Hi Mark,
On Mon, 2020-08-31 at 02:13 -0600, Mark Galassi wrote:
> Thanks for letting us know. Do you happen to know who these
FSDG
> maintainers are and how they are contacted? And is this consultation
> process open?
The process so far was a thread on the gnu-prog-discuss mailing list.
This is *not* gnu-community-private, and I think it has a lot of free
software developers.
I don't know what approach he will use to discuss it with distro
maintainers. If you want I can try to find out.
I am mostly interested in what the proper procedure for updating the
Free System Distribution Guidelines. I don't believe this is a GNU
activity and if it was, then I believe the procedure should be open and
public from the start.
btw: the info for gnu-prog-discuss is below. It looks like you
could
request to join.
I know about gnu-prog-discuss. It is a private list that you should not
mention in public: "gnu-prog-discuss should not be mentioned in other
contexts. It is meant to be an internal mailing list. Please do not
include it in mail sent to those not on it."
I found it toxic. Often real domain exports are not there (scared
away), so the technical discussions never reach a conclusion. And not
having a code of conduct for that list meant that people feared to
express their opinion because they would be attacked for not following
the GNU party line (however the most fanatical would interpret that).
Cheers,
Mark
10:46 a.m.
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 12:10:40AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Last year we already raised this issue in our open letter the the
FSF:
https://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2019/12/27/proposals-for-the-new-gnu-...
We understand that traditionally the FSF has used the gnu.org
domain not just for the GNU project, but also to facilitate other
programs of the FSF. We would like to see a better separation
between pages maintained by GNU volunteers and FSF staff
maintained pages for other FSF programs.
Specifically we like to give pages maintained by the FSF Licensing
and Compliance Lab like the Free Software Definition, License
List, Free System Distribution Guidelines and other FSF Compliance
programs on which the larger Free Software community relies a
special status or redirect them to the fsf.org domain.
did we write such intelligent things? I am amazed at ourselves!
Indeed this web page is a good example of an inextricable amalgam between
GNU and the FSF; it is completely unclear who is responsible for the page.
The URL starts with the gnu.org domain.
The box starts with:
"This page is maintained by the Free Software Foundation's Licensing and
Compliance Lab."
The title of the page is:
"Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG)"
The last paragraph starts with
"If you have questions or comments about these guidelines themselves, feel
free to send those to <licensing(a)fsf.org>."
Then there is some advertisement to join the FSF.
Finally the footer starts with
"Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <gnu(a)gnu.org>."
Why should we send general FSF inquiries to gnu(a)gnu.org?
Indeed I still think this page looks more like FSF than GNU matter:
theoretically, even a non-GNU distribution could qualify as free.
Then it is weird to discuss FSF matter on a private GNU list
(even more so than discussing GNU matter on a private GNU list :-))
Lets raise this issue again. The FSF finally has a new president, so
hopefully they are a bit more responsive this time around:
https://www.fsf.org/news/geoffrey-knauth-elected-free-software-foundation...
Thanks for the heads up, I had indeed not heard about it. And I agree
with raising the issue again; maybe we could simply resend the mail
to the new board?
Andreas
7:46 a.m.
Hi Andreas,
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 12:46:58PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote:
Indeed this web page is a good example of an inextricable amalgam
between
GNU and the FSF; it is completely unclear who is responsible for the page.
The URL starts with the gnu.org domain.
The box starts with:
"This page is maintained by the Free Software Foundation's Licensing and
Compliance Lab."
The title of the page is:
"Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG)"
The last paragraph starts with
"If you have questions or comments about these guidelines themselves, feel
free to send those to <licensing(a)fsf.org>."
Then there is some advertisement to join the FSF.
Finally the footer starts with
"Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <gnu(a)gnu.org>."
Why should we send general FSF inquiries to gnu(a)gnu.org?
Indeed I still think this page looks more like FSF than GNU matter:
theoretically, even a non-GNU distribution could qualify as free.
Then it is weird to discuss FSF matter on a private GNU list
(even more so than discussing GNU matter on a private GNU list :-))
Agreed. But at least we are discussing this now here, which is a
public (although subscribers only) list.
> Lets raise this issue again. The FSF finally has a new
president, so
> hopefully they are a bit more responsive this time around:
>
https://www.fsf.org/news/geoffrey-knauth-elected-free-software-foundation...
Thanks for the heads up, I had indeed not heard about it. And I agree
with raising the issue again; maybe we could simply resend the mail
to the new board?
I couldn't find an email address for the new president nor could I
find how to contact the FSF board. I did however see the new FSF
president on irc (he is gknauth on irc.gnu.org), but haven't yet been
able to talk to him when we were both online. But maybe it is better
to raise the individual issues with the people who are really handling
them instead of trying to resolve all issues at once.
So in this case we should probably simply contact Craig and Donald who
run the Free Software Foundation's Licensing and Compliance Lab and do
have contact information online.
Cheers,
Mark
8:19 a.m.
Hello,
thanks for the info!
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:01:47PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Changes to the Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG¹) are
being
discussed on the private gnu-prog-discuss mailing list.
Would you mind quickly summarising the content of the discussion? Why are
changes needed, and in which direction are they envisioned?
1. several distros are committed to the FSDG and I think it’d be
nice
to give them a chance to chime in;
Indeed I share your concern. Distributions that previously endorsed the FSDG
should have their voice heard, instead of discovering potential changes after
the deed and needing to decide whether they still wish to adhere. Also, they
could give valuable input on practical considerations and trade-offs.
(I figured it’s also a way to say hi! to all of you. :-))
Thanks, hi back! With covid, life feels a bit like groundhog day, and
"normal" activities have been suspended for quite a while.
Andreas
12:54 p.m.
Hello!
Andreas Enge <andreas(a)enge.fr> skribis:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:01:47PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Changes to the Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG¹) are being
> discussed on the private gnu-prog-discuss mailing list.
Would you mind quickly summarising the content of the discussion? Why are
changes needed, and in which direction are they envisioned?
RMS is proposing changes regarding the communication tools that
endorsing distros may use. I don’t have much to say on the changes
themselves; my concern is really about the process, not about the
proposal.
> 1. several distros are committed to the FSDG and I think it’d
be nice
> to give them a chance to chime in;
Indeed I share your concern. Distributions that previously endorsed the FSDG
should have their voice heard, instead of discovering potential changes after
the deed and needing to decide whether they still wish to adhere. Also, they
could give valuable input on practical considerations and trade-offs.
Agreed.
> (I figured it’s also a way to say hi! to all of you. :-))
Thanks, hi back! With covid, life feels a bit like groundhog day, and
"normal" activities have been suspended for quite a while.
(I figured it’s also a way to say hi! to all of you. :-))
:-)
Ludo’.
1339
days inactive
1345
days old
11 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andreas Enge -
Ludovic Courtès -
Mark Galassi -
Mark Wielaard