* On 2017 10 Jul 14:24 -0500, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:53:09PM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> > Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. Just because the code is GPL,
> > it seems fine by him.
>
> Sorry, but I really don't see what RMS should do here. He has focussed
> his entire life on the fundamental problem of making sure that
> software remains free, as in speech, and he has always (and
> rightfully, IMHO) avoided to intervene in any technical battle we have
> seen in the free-software world in the last 30 years, with the only
> hilarious exception of the vi-vs-emacs farse, epitomised in the
> fictious character of St. IGNUcious....

I certainly do not disagree.

> From a technical point of view, systemd is free software, and trying
> to deny it is just stupid: you can fork the code from github, and have
> a go at it, modify it as you like, and redistribute it under the terms
> of the GNU LGPL 2.1 (yes, it's LGPL, not GPL). And concerning the
> legendary "forced adoption", the distros out there have *chosen*
> systemd, on the basis of a set of risible "technical aspects", but
> still, they have *chosen* it.

A [L]GPL'ed worm or virus is Free Software, but is it acceptable
software? Of course, if we're only concerned about its licensing, we
won't have a care what it does to user's computers or data.

It has always seemed to me that an implicit part of the GPL is the old
Google slogan, "Do no harm."

It has been long ago, perhaps the better part of two decades since I
read this, but RMS was not a fan of computer security as it developed
around him. While he appears more accepting now, he is no Bruce
Schneier. Therefore, I am not surprised that he does not weigh in on
such matters.

IMO, there is a level of responsibility to the users and their resources
that should surround Free Software development.

> So please, let's stop making fouls of ourselves. The problem is not
> systemd being or not being free software, rather its creators and
> sponsors being or not being well-intentioned towards the free software
> community. And this is not a problem of RMS, or Linus, or anybody else
> in particular, rather a problem of the community *as a whole*.

But the community right now is very fractured, perhaps the most
fractured since I stepped into this world of Linux and Free Software
nearly 21 years ago. A divide and conquer strategy has been implemented
from a direction that took a long time for many of us to recognize and
accept. Those of us who have now recognized it are seemingly small but
growing in number. So far the most well known name to post to this list
is Bruce Perens. I think the community will benefit when others abandon
neutrality.

Why that has not happened yet is that I suspect for a number of those
people there has been a hope that cooler heads would prevail, that a
better design would emerge, and that community engagement would become
more open. Also, no one of any recognition wants to be seen as engaging
in conspiracy theories which, up until recently, criticism has been
dismissed out of hand as being borne of conspiracy theories.

> Instead of asking what RMS can do against systemd, I would rather ask
> myself what I can do to avoid the systemd avalanche. Hoping that
> Superman will zoom over New York and save the world will not help
> saving the world.

If you took my comment as minimizing all of the hard work done by the
Devuan team, that was certainly not my intention. In fact, that thought
never even entered my mind.

And really, I don't fault RMS. I was merely making an observation.

- Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us