Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The GNU ethical repository criteria will only harm free software.

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:09:21 +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> Some are just stupid, like not allowing the site to recommend SaaSS,
> when the sites themselves are in fact SaaSS.
>
> Some are trying to push unrelated FSF politics -- like "you need to
> say GNU/Linux when we think you might be talking about a GNU+Linux
> system, not just Linux". To make that one even worse, it's actually
> considered *more important* than *accessibility for the handicapped*
> and *anonymity*. Are you fucking serious, GNU?

The criteria are designed for hosting GNU projects.  We hope that the
criteria will also be useful to others, but that isn't the
purpose---they are designed to ensure that hosts for GNU projects
follow, at least to some degree, the GNU philosophy.

GNU and the FSF stand against SaaSS.  We insist on speaking of both GNU
and Linux when referring to the GNU operating system.  If you look at
our maintainers guide[0], you will find that these criteria are
consistent, where possible, with its requirements.  Many of the
repository criteria naturally are aligned with the GNU and the FSF's
position on JavaScript.[1]

> If I'm supposed to take the criteria seriously, they need to address
> the actual issue at hand. To give a parallel, if FSF is going to start
> pushing that awful non-free license they use for documentation and
> writings with the same strength as they work for free software
> (ironic, isn't it), I -- and likely several others -- will cease our
> donating quick as.
>
>
> As it stands now, the criteria are a good start, but worthless.

I encourage you to make constructive suggestions at
repo-criteria-discuss@gnu.org.


[0]: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/
[1]: https://fsf.org/campaigns/freejs

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer
http://mikegerwitz.com
FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature