Goodbye to GNU Libreboot(lists.gnu.org)
lists.gnu.org
Goodbye to GNU Libreboot
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2017-01/msg00001.html
98 comments
It's very difficult to classify people by e-mails. I worked with so many people who were very nice to me. We'd discuss requirements. I'd even type up timelines and e-mail them docs.
Next day, a thread with every manager in the planet saying our team was stonewalling everything, being unhelpful, etc. etc.
My boss would come up to my cube and say, "Stop e-mailing these people! Why are you e-mailing them? Pick up the phone and call them!"
I hate to rush judgement, but looking at the statements that are out, I am really unhappy with her approach, her statements and her totalism. Just because you don't agree with a policy doesn't mean the FSF shouldn't exist. Pulling your project feels reactionary.
I'm guilty of reactionary anger too. I'm human, we're all human. We feel like we've been wronged often by our neighbours or our landlords or police. This might have just been a bad week for her and some rushed decision making. But if she's always like this and doesn't learn from it, then she'll find herself alone in other communities in the future.
Just a side note, there was a good video by School of Life on anger. I don't actually agree with all of it. Their premise is weird, but it would actually put her reaction to the FSF in a different light:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coiCkmcKjX8
Next day, a thread with every manager in the planet saying our team was stonewalling everything, being unhelpful, etc. etc.
My boss would come up to my cube and say, "Stop e-mailing these people! Why are you e-mailing them? Pick up the phone and call them!"
I hate to rush judgement, but looking at the statements that are out, I am really unhappy with her approach, her statements and her totalism. Just because you don't agree with a policy doesn't mean the FSF shouldn't exist. Pulling your project feels reactionary.
I'm guilty of reactionary anger too. I'm human, we're all human. We feel like we've been wronged often by our neighbours or our landlords or police. This might have just been a bad week for her and some rushed decision making. But if she's always like this and doesn't learn from it, then she'll find herself alone in other communities in the future.
Just a side note, there was a good video by School of Life on anger. I don't actually agree with all of it. Their premise is weird, but it would actually put her reaction to the FSF in a different light:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coiCkmcKjX8
In one of her latter posts she confesses that the person who was fired was a close friend of hers. So I think this is a case of her being too close to the subject matter to be objective. In fact I think she came to realise this herself but not until it was too late for her and the project:
https://libreboot.org/gnu/#leah-not-a-hero
https://libreboot.org/gnu/#leah-not-a-hero
Well that does not justify any of this trouble she caused, indeed, it only makes it worse. Even the fired person herself has finished their frienship with her.
I wasn't justifying her actions but at the end of the day witch hunts like this happen all too frequently online. It's way to easy for people to overreact and to a wider audience than ever before. The smart thing we can do as 3rd party observers is just ignore the fighting rather than participating in the outrage. Let the offended individuals vent and then let the argument disappear into obscurity. The alternative is escalation and we've seen how badly that can turn out (remember the grim Adria Richards Python conference saga which resulting in multiple job terminations and threats of sexual assault and death?).
Well it might've been a difficult week for her. The last twelve months have been truly and profoundly terrible for me, this wouldn't justify me acting mad like her though. It's obvious that she's not the kind of person to bear responsabilities.
Lol "pessimism is the cure for anger".
> A mistake was done by some people in FSF
Probably just one person, and she was fired for it (or, more likely, them).
Probably just one person, and she was fired for it (or, more likely, them).
Letting go of people often has to do with a series of mistakes. It's something most companies and non-profits can't do lightly. There is so much potential blowback, like with this case. These decisions usually involve a couple of people. We don't have introspection into this, so we can't be sure. Resist the urge to assume.
> Whatever the case is, even though I know null about the project, I can easily say that Leah Rowe, whoever she might be, is apparently toxic for the project.
So you don't know anything about the project beside that their main/core maintainer accuses GNU project to have fired a trans person and therefor she doesn't want to work there anymore.
Call me SJW or Gutmensch but if that makes you 'easily say' that she is 'apparently toxic', you are a prime example for what is going wrong in tech.
So you don't know anything about the project beside that their main/core maintainer accuses GNU project to have fired a trans person and therefor she doesn't want to work there anymore.
Call me SJW or Gutmensch but if that makes you 'easily say' that she is 'apparently toxic', you are a prime example for what is going wrong in tech.
I know quite a bit about FSF and GNU. The maintainer of libreboot here makes blunt accusations and decides in the name of other participants of the project (and they don't all agree to her: http://zammit.org/libreboot-screwup.html). She uses vulgarity, over-reacts, abuses her position to publish articles in the name of all the community on the project website.... see, who would you find more dependable in this context?
Leah outed a stealth trans woman as part of her crusade. She's hurt that person far more than the FSF ever did.
I'm not GP, but
>Call me SJW or Gutmensch but if that makes you 'easily say' that she is 'apparently toxic', you are a prime example for what is going wrong in tech.
I don't even know what SJW means anymore. There are too many definitions floating around. But it doesn't matter, because I don't care what you are, and I'm not interested in insulting you. That's pointless. While I may not always succeed at doing so (staying detached is hard!), I would rather attack ideas than people.
The thing is, whether or not what Leah did was right, how she went about it was entirely wrong. If she doesn't want to work for the FSF, and if she wants to fight the FSF over its actions, I don't care. But her lack of professionalism is unacceptable. That's why I would call her toxic (although I haven't done that yet).
>Call me SJW or Gutmensch but if that makes you 'easily say' that she is 'apparently toxic', you are a prime example for what is going wrong in tech.
I don't even know what SJW means anymore. There are too many definitions floating around. But it doesn't matter, because I don't care what you are, and I'm not interested in insulting you. That's pointless. While I may not always succeed at doing so (staying detached is hard!), I would rather attack ideas than people.
The thing is, whether or not what Leah did was right, how she went about it was entirely wrong. If she doesn't want to work for the FSF, and if she wants to fight the FSF over its actions, I don't care. But her lack of professionalism is unacceptable. That's why I would call her toxic (although I haven't done that yet).
Looking at how one-sided the discussion here but especially on reddit is should be worrying.
Not saying it's the case, we all don't know, but if the accusations are right, it's absolutely reasonable to not want to work with these people. You can say all you want about being professional and not having politics influence your technical decisions, but that's easy to say if it's not your life style choices that are discriminated against.
Not saying it's the case, we all don't know, but if the accusations are right, it's absolutely reasonable to not want to work with these people. You can say all you want about being professional and not having politics influence your technical decisions, but that's easy to say if it's not your life style choices that are discriminated against.
"If". I currently consider that an extraordinary claim, given the FSF's reason for existence and RMS's long publicly stated beliefs. Of course Rowe's claims are possible! It's just that they fly in the face of expectations given all the FSF's actions over the years.
Rowe herself says (https://libreboot.org/gnu/#leah-not-a-hero):
> The trans person who was fired, I had already lost as a friend, and was deeply upset at the time. I had started to say nasty things to this person, over a disagreement, which was also my fault. I thought that exposing the FSF for their discriminatory practises would redeem me and possibly make that person be my friend again.
She got in a fight with a friend, accused the FSF of misdeeds partly in hopes of winning that friend back, and outed a person who did not want to be outed. Between the parties involved and the circumstances, I'm inclined to give the FSF the benefit of the doubt. I am willing to be proven wrong! But until then, I see no reason whatsoever to believe those accusations.
Rowe herself says (https://libreboot.org/gnu/#leah-not-a-hero):
> The trans person who was fired, I had already lost as a friend, and was deeply upset at the time. I had started to say nasty things to this person, over a disagreement, which was also my fault. I thought that exposing the FSF for their discriminatory practises would redeem me and possibly make that person be my friend again.
She got in a fight with a friend, accused the FSF of misdeeds partly in hopes of winning that friend back, and outed a person who did not want to be outed. Between the parties involved and the circumstances, I'm inclined to give the FSF the benefit of the doubt. I am willing to be proven wrong! But until then, I see no reason whatsoever to believe those accusations.
This situation is subject to information asymetry, and, as with some other conflicts, reduces down to a question of trust [1]. Half a year ago, the question of the Tor Project and accusations against Appelbaum formed a situation that also caused unrelated third-parties to evaluate who they trust more, which, given the gravity and nature of the the accusations, was an extremely contentious exercise. And in that case, the accusations, if truthful, came directly from victims.
In this case, I don't think it's quite a fair ask to unilaterally imply the existence of a troubling conflict, taking a moral position in the name of a different allegedly aggrieved party, force people to pick a side, then punish them for their choice. It seems many other people feel the same way, which they express in varying tones.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173742#12174545
In this case, I don't think it's quite a fair ask to unilaterally imply the existence of a troubling conflict, taking a moral position in the name of a different allegedly aggrieved party, force people to pick a side, then punish them for their choice. It seems many other people feel the same way, which they express in varying tones.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173742#12174545
The only person that can set the record straight, the person that was let go by the FSF, have been silent the whole time.
It seems the person would rather not be part of the drama. Leah was having a heated argument with this person. As a way to get back/appease (??) to this person, Leah blew up on FSF, against the wish of that person.
https://libreboot.org/gnu/#leah-not-a-hero
https://libreboot.org/gnu/#leah-not-a-hero
Dear deity...
>but if the accusations are right, it's absolutely reasonable to not want to work with these people.
At this point, that's a big if.
In any case, I do a lot of gaming, so my perspective may be warped here, but I would blame Reddit's one-sidedness on KotakuInAction/GamerGate. After people like Anita Sarkeesian and that particular kerfuffle, anybody involved in that scene (even tangentially) is going to want very strong evidence before believing any claims of persecution (and if you feel like talking Anita and GamerGate themselves, rather than whether or not you think that it contributed to the atmosphere I'm describing, please don't. I don't want another flame war). Claims of persecution that I find rather improbable. The FSF, say what you will about them, have never been the sorts to persecute based on race and gender.
At this point, that's a big if.
In any case, I do a lot of gaming, so my perspective may be warped here, but I would blame Reddit's one-sidedness on KotakuInAction/GamerGate. After people like Anita Sarkeesian and that particular kerfuffle, anybody involved in that scene (even tangentially) is going to want very strong evidence before believing any claims of persecution (and if you feel like talking Anita and GamerGate themselves, rather than whether or not you think that it contributed to the atmosphere I'm describing, please don't. I don't want another flame war). Claims of persecution that I find rather improbable. The FSF, say what you will about them, have never been the sorts to persecute based on race and gender.
To be fair, the accusations have never been about persecuting on race and/or gender in such a strict sense - they're basically about the FSF deciding they didn't want the hassle of employing somebody who some other employees were harassing on the basis of gender identity.
Note that this doesn't require that the people who fired her are bigots so to speak - you can fully empathise with someone and still decide that it's easier/cheaper for the company to fire them than to deal with the problem, and without strong worker protections, that's possibly a perfectly rational thing to do. The FSF isn't particularly special in regards to the rights of minority groups and I'd expect it to behave the same as many organisations of a similar size. But the result is an organisation which tends heavily towards discrimination against people outside the cultural norm (who're more likely to be targeted and harassed, and so cost additional time/money/risk to employ), and that's something some people feel quite strongly should be fought against.
Note that this doesn't require that the people who fired her are bigots so to speak - you can fully empathise with someone and still decide that it's easier/cheaper for the company to fire them than to deal with the problem, and without strong worker protections, that's possibly a perfectly rational thing to do. The FSF isn't particularly special in regards to the rights of minority groups and I'd expect it to behave the same as many organisations of a similar size. But the result is an organisation which tends heavily towards discrimination against people outside the cultural norm (who're more likely to be targeted and harassed, and so cost additional time/money/risk to employ), and that's something some people feel quite strongly should be fought against.
I'm aware of the original problem and was reading before about it and even if this was all handled very badly publicly by some sides at least I read this email and all that is there is perfectly reasonable, is written in a good tone and leads to an acceptable conclusion. Stallman did what he could with this decision to stop the e-drama. I'm all happier for it.
Afterwards I read the comments here, people saying that Minifree is actually her job, which I find amazing because it provides things I care about and I want to see it growing up.
Finnaly I clicked on the link someone posted - https://libreboot.org/gnu/#leah-not-a-hero - and got surprised and kinda annoyed ( I may even say it pissed me off, when usually nothing I read on the interwebs provokes those kind of feelings in me ) by the fixed overlay currently there on the page:
"It took the GNU project 4 months to finally honour Libreboot's decisions, but on 5 January 2017, RMS formally acknowledged it - his reasoning is flawed. They should have immediately honoured Libreboot's decision to leave GNU, but instead they arrogantly resisted it for months, and the only reason they gave up was because they realized that all of Libreboot's core developers were OK with leaving GNU and still preferred to work with Leah Rowe. This page explains why no project should ever join GNU."
This is just so bad and putting more wood to the fire for no reason at all than e-drama. I was hoping people were a little more grown up, but as usual I got disappointed.
Afterwards I read the comments here, people saying that Minifree is actually her job, which I find amazing because it provides things I care about and I want to see it growing up.
Finnaly I clicked on the link someone posted - https://libreboot.org/gnu/#leah-not-a-hero - and got surprised and kinda annoyed ( I may even say it pissed me off, when usually nothing I read on the interwebs provokes those kind of feelings in me ) by the fixed overlay currently there on the page:
"It took the GNU project 4 months to finally honour Libreboot's decisions, but on 5 January 2017, RMS formally acknowledged it - his reasoning is flawed. They should have immediately honoured Libreboot's decision to leave GNU, but instead they arrogantly resisted it for months, and the only reason they gave up was because they realized that all of Libreboot's core developers were OK with leaving GNU and still preferred to work with Leah Rowe. This page explains why no project should ever join GNU."
This is just so bad and putting more wood to the fire for no reason at all than e-drama. I was hoping people were a little more grown up, but as usual I got disappointed.
TL;DR
Quote: "Reasons: (1) it had not been a GNU package for very long, (2) she was the developer who had originally made it a GNU package, and (3) there were no major developers who wanted to continue developing Libreboot under GNU auspices."
Quote: "Reasons: (1) it had not been a GNU package for very long, (2) she was the developer who had originally made it a GNU package, and (3) there were no major developers who wanted to continue developing Libreboot under GNU auspices."
Having seen a number of 'libre' projects disappear or radically change management (sometimes under unlitigated accusations of harassment or misconduct), I hope that important projects to the freedom of computer use continue to exist.
Recently TrueCrypt has disappeared, TOR got new management (a bunch of suits), etc.
Personal spats aside, these projects are bigger than the organizations and people who sacrifice so much to contribute to them.
I might recommend to the FSF and GNU that these sorts of projects need to be given special attention with regard to their continued existence, the happiness and healthiness of the contributors, the transparency of internal activities, and the thwarting of intelligence/infiltration activity.
The continued, healthy existence of free software depends not only on the code but on the institutions and the people who provide, advertise, decide and distribute that code.
Recently TrueCrypt has disappeared, TOR got new management (a bunch of suits), etc.
Personal spats aside, these projects are bigger than the organizations and people who sacrifice so much to contribute to them.
I might recommend to the FSF and GNU that these sorts of projects need to be given special attention with regard to their continued existence, the happiness and healthiness of the contributors, the transparency of internal activities, and the thwarting of intelligence/infiltration activity.
The continued, healthy existence of free software depends not only on the code but on the institutions and the people who provide, advertise, decide and distribute that code.
Personally I think the FSF ideology taken too far is pretty ridiculous anyway.
pierre_d528(1)
> Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
I always get a chuckle out of his soap boxing. He's not wrong, just amusing.
I always get a chuckle out of his soap boxing. He's not wrong, just amusing.
Finally some resolution to this e-drama!
Sounds like half the story.
The libreboot website says that they left GNU to protest transgender discrimination at the FSF.[0]
[0] https://libreboot.org/
The libreboot website says that they left GNU to protest transgender discrimination at the FSF.[0]
[0] https://libreboot.org/
To make this even more confusing, the FSF disputes that there was harrasment [1] and one Libreboot contributor states that the Libreboot maintainer did not speak on behalf of the whole project [2].
[1] https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement
[2] http://zammit.org/libreboot-screwup.html
[1] https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement
[2] http://zammit.org/libreboot-screwup.html
more near a 10th of the story
Neither side wants to put up any substantial verifiable information about it, so there is nothing to talk about on that front.
Neither side wants to put up any substantial verifiable information about it, so there is nothing to talk about on that front.
Not sure why this has been downvoted. Neither party in the firing dispute with FSF has gone public, so drawing any conclusions based on the minimal amount of information we have right now is not wise.
It's always interesting how strong of an opinion some people can have about issues that they aren't in a position to comment about...
I don't think there's much else the FSF could say here without treading into legally dubious territory either.
Yes, but the transgender person in question didn't want the issue to be brought up, there's no evidence of discrimination, and Leah's actions were incredibly unprofessional, no matter whether there was a decent reason for them initially.
Better source for her side of the story is at https://libreboot.org/gnu/
I thought that exposing the FSF for their discriminatory practises would redeem me and possibly make that person be my friend again.
https://libreboot.org/gnu/#leah-not-a-hero
Speaks to the motivation for this whole situation.
https://libreboot.org/gnu/#leah-not-a-hero
Speaks to the motivation for this whole situation.
digler999(2)
Context: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/54agii/richard_stall...
Original email that sparked the controversy: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreboot/2016-09/msg00036...
Original email that sparked the controversy: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreboot/2016-09/msg00036...
Is the reddit user "BaronHK" the same person who posted http://zammit.org/libreboot-screwup.html or just someone quoting it? My sense is he's the latter, but I'm not 100% sure.
In any case, the zammit.org statement sounds like it's a more believable reflection of the libreboot community. All the libreboot.org stuff reads too much like one perhaps-toxic person getting up on a soapbox.
In any case, the zammit.org statement sounds like it's a more believable reflection of the libreboot community. All the libreboot.org stuff reads too much like one perhaps-toxic person getting up on a soapbox.
> one perhaps-toxic person getting up on a soapbox.
Quite possible, and sadly seems to be happening more and more within the FOSS world.
Quite possible, and sadly seems to be happening more and more within the FOSS world.
Thanks so much for this context. There is also an official statement regarding the firing itself:
https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement
https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement
Those emails look sent drunk or angry.
The first one does not look like it was proof read. I don't always proof read everything, but important ones I don't leave with an obvious typo.
Anyhow free software will carry on.
The first one does not look like it was proof read. I don't always proof read everything, but important ones I don't leave with an obvious typo.
Anyhow free software will carry on.
My hope is that the project continues irrespective of its relationship to other organizations. It's pretty damn important.
I don't necessarily agree. Coreboot is important. Libreboot is nice to have.
Is that because there is very little original development occurring in Libreboot (it's my understanding that it's basically Coreboot with some binary blobs removed but not actually replaced).
Libreboot and other projects with a similar relationship to upstream suffer from a paradox: It appears that no original development is happening there, because all of the original development is sent upstream. The work done by developers hired to work on Libreboot looks like work done on Coreboot, because Libreboot cooperates with Coreboot and sends their work upstream.
[deleted](1)
E-drama aside, this is probably for the better, given the following:
- The developer has sole commit rights against the repo and hence no further would could be done on it without forking.
- The developer's continued trashing of the FSF poisoned the well for any number of people who might have wanted to work on Libreboot, GNU-version or otherwise. The fact is, no one wants to be part of a "contentious" fork.
It's a pity that it came to this, because I think the project would likely have received much more support as a GNU package. On the other hand, the lead developer made it very clear that she no longer wished for it to be a GNU package, and she seems to have devoted considerable time and resources (monetary included) to the project.
So it goes. I say good on Stallman for not using the GNU's muscle to maintain ownership of the project.
- The developer has sole commit rights against the repo and hence no further would could be done on it without forking.
- The developer's continued trashing of the FSF poisoned the well for any number of people who might have wanted to work on Libreboot, GNU-version or otherwise. The fact is, no one wants to be part of a "contentious" fork.
It's a pity that it came to this, because I think the project would likely have received much more support as a GNU package. On the other hand, the lead developer made it very clear that she no longer wished for it to be a GNU package, and she seems to have devoted considerable time and resources (monetary included) to the project.
So it goes. I say good on Stallman for not using the GNU's muscle to maintain ownership of the project.
I have mixed feelings. Yes, good on RMS for taking the high road and putting an end to this. On the other hand, it sets the precedent that screaming gets results. I don't like that, even in cases where I agree with the screaming.
she seems to have devoted considerable time and resources (monetary included) to the project.
For a bit more context: Her full-time job is Minifree, a company she founded that sells computers with Libreboot pre-installed. Minifree has then contracted other developers to work on support for more hardware.
For a bit more context: Her full-time job is Minifree, a company she founded that sells computers with Libreboot pre-installed. Minifree has then contracted other developers to work on support for more hardware.
Well reading the front page it seems to mee that all they do is to deblob coreboot and combine it with GRUB and another package.
All due respect for Leah Rowe and her work on libreboot, but this kind of drama only hurts the OpenSource (regardless of the name you like to use) initiative.
Stallman did the right thing I guess.
Stallman did the right thing I guess.
I don't think it's fair to lay the blame for the drama at her feet. The FSF could have handled this more professionally from the beginning.
What are you talking about? FSF handled it 100% examplary from the get go.
Leah Rowe however was the toxic and crazy drama queen who couldn't keep a civil tone, and even her initial email included the word "fuck".
To top it off, she had zero proof for her allegations, and the person she claimed to represent specifically didn't want her to raise those allegations in her name.
In the rest of the world, we refer that as slander and libel. She should be happy nobody bothered to sue her. On either end.
Given Leah's behavior, I cannot see how on earth the FSF could have acted more level headed, reasonable and professional.
Seriously... what did they not do right?
Leah Rowe however was the toxic and crazy drama queen who couldn't keep a civil tone, and even her initial email included the word "fuck".
To top it off, she had zero proof for her allegations, and the person she claimed to represent specifically didn't want her to raise those allegations in her name.
In the rest of the world, we refer that as slander and libel. She should be happy nobody bothered to sue her. On either end.
Given Leah's behavior, I cannot see how on earth the FSF could have acted more level headed, reasonable and professional.
Seriously... what did they not do right?
I don't have much to add to this discussion... but historically the FOSS community loves sharing Linus' nastygrams... I find people having a problem with this developer's tone somewhat sexist and irrelevant.
If the FSF thought that minimizing drama was a priority, they could have accepted that the maintainer wanted to take libreboot out of the GNU project without prolonging the whole thing. Like, basically this submission, but a couple of months earlier.
Also, more generally, I maintain that there's more nuance to the question of professional behavior than whether your communication includes common swear words.
Also, more generally, I maintain that there's more nuance to the question of professional behavior than whether your communication includes common swear words.
> could have accepted that the maintainer wanted to take libreboot out of the GNU project without prolonging the whole thing
If I read the FSF statements correctly, there were very good reasons for taking some time, which I found quite convincing.
For instance, they were looking for a new maintainer of this GNU project, especially since GNU projects belong to GNU/FSF, not to the individual maintainers. The maintainers are free to step down and let other maintainers continue a project.
Would it have been more professional if they had thrown away their management process for GNU projects in this single case?
If I read the FSF statements correctly, there were very good reasons for taking some time, which I found quite convincing.
For instance, they were looking for a new maintainer of this GNU project, especially since GNU projects belong to GNU/FSF, not to the individual maintainers. The maintainers are free to step down and let other maintainers continue a project.
Would it have been more professional if they had thrown away their management process for GNU projects in this single case?
GNU projects belong to GNU/FSF
The only documentation that I see[0] about this just says "The program remains a GNU package unless/until the GNU project decides to decommission it.", but that's not a legal document. Assigning the copyright to the FSF would be a good indicator, but is not actually required to be a GNU package. So unless they have some other document to sign, then this seems to be a mutual contract which can be terminated by either party at any time. I don't know if that document exists (if it does, you'd think they'd link it on that page so people could review it), but if it doesn't, then I don't see any reason why the original submitter can't revoke GNU package status, like any other business relationship.
[0] - https://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.en.html
The only documentation that I see[0] about this just says "The program remains a GNU package unless/until the GNU project decides to decommission it.", but that's not a legal document. Assigning the copyright to the FSF would be a good indicator, but is not actually required to be a GNU package. So unless they have some other document to sign, then this seems to be a mutual contract which can be terminated by either party at any time. I don't know if that document exists (if it does, you'd think they'd link it on that page so people could review it), but if it doesn't, then I don't see any reason why the original submitter can't revoke GNU package status, like any other business relationship.
[0] - https://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.en.html
When you get your project into GNU, you practically transfer the ownership and become a maintainer only. Maintainers come and maintainers go, GNU tries to ensure that projects live on when staff changes. GNU projects thus belong to the community and their fate should not be left to the whims of the individuals.
In this case though it's nice that the project is detached given it's not all that important and does not worth the burden.
In this case though it's nice that the project is detached given it's not all that important and does not worth the burden.
> The FSF could have handled this more professionally from the beginning.
In what way?
In what way?
So, is there any truth to the accusations of discrimination and harassment over at FSF?
Either way this kind of drama would seem par for the course for people who view software development through political and philosophical lenses, but from a practical perspective it makes her mic drop seem a lot more noble if she's right.
Either way this kind of drama would seem par for the course for people who view software development through political and philosophical lenses, but from a practical perspective it makes her mic drop seem a lot more noble if she's right.
>Either way this kind of drama would seem par for the course for people who view software development through political and philosophical lenses
If you are a software developer and don't think about the social impact of what you do then you're being irresponsible.
If you are a software developer and don't think about the social impact of what you do then you're being irresponsible.
If you are a software developer and don't think about the social impact of what you do then you're being irresponsible.
That seems a bit egotistical.
If I'm trying to make some in-house enterprisey thing run twice as fast, chances are there isn't much in the way of societal impact for me to think about.
If I'm building a sub-sub-component of some new system, chances are I don't have enough information to even start guessing at the overall effects of the complete system as it will eventually end up being used.
That seems a bit egotistical.
If I'm trying to make some in-house enterprisey thing run twice as fast, chances are there isn't much in the way of societal impact for me to think about.
If I'm building a sub-sub-component of some new system, chances are I don't have enough information to even start guessing at the overall effects of the complete system as it will eventually end up being used.
I think you always have to consider the effect of what you do. There are many situations - like the ones you describe - where that might be as simple as thinking "huh, this doesn't affect anything" and getting to work. That's still a valuable exercise because it gets you in the habit of at least weighing it.
debatem1(2)
Yes and no. Libreboot in this instance seems have crap all to do with the issue, expect being used as leverage for one individual in the dustup.
These situations are awkward because any other resolution would've made GNU look like an aggressor. This response acknowledges that GNU isn't a fan of the maintainer's choice, but all other outcomes are sub-par, and they don't want to fork or engage this topic further. The maintainer wins by default.
Seems like a good call by rms to drop the matter instead of insisting on a permanent feud over a project that GNU is apparently not very interested in.
The attitude that comes across in this message... this is the problem with GNU and that whole sector of the OSS community that seems to follow the 'Stallman' way.
"you aren't allowed your freedom because <incomprehensible jibberish>" from people who advocate software freedom is a total headfuck
"you aren't allowed your freedom because <incomprehensible jibberish>" from people who advocate software freedom is a total headfuck
What freedom is being withheld by the FSF in this message? They're granting the maintainer's wishes to a T. The maintainer even explicitly requested that the FSF make a public announcement about it.
its the tone and attitude, not the literal interpretation of the statement nor what has happened. 'once your project is under the GNU aegis its there for life' - its fair enough to make that decision, but the result here is not respecting the ideal that very many people have about having a freedom to do what you want with 'your stuff', and what constitutes 'your stuff'
if you don't particularly care for ideals of ownership or materialism then this isn't so objectionable. it makes a lot of sense, because then you don't even see the project as 'yours' and doing so is obviously counter to the ideals of the GNU project and FSF.
however, the sad practical reality of the world is that most people care a great deal about these kinds of things - its a part of why there is so much proprietary software, and also why many places i have worked forbid GPL dependencies, often in a list of "free software licenses we can't allow in dependencies" along with some statement about why - which is usually about how its 'infectious' nature means that it can't be used without forcing other parts of a product to be made into GPL software - an unacceptable price to pay, because the freedom to keep things private is considered as being so valuable.
"you can use our free (as in speech, not beer) software freely, but provided that you sacrifice your freedom of ownership on your own software"
this is another one of those kinds of statements i generalised as with "you aren't allowed your freedom because <incomprehensible jibberish>"
i don't think its a big leap to consider that sort of statement mind boggling from a philosophical standpoint - you want to advocate freedom with something that curtails freedom?
its the same principle with the idea that GNU projects are somehow owned by GNU, and that this is irreversible. again, its trying to advocate the philosophy by doing something that is counter to it.
now, i don't consider the maintainer in this case to be in the right. they should have been aware that this is the nature of GNU projects. i also consider her attitude to be so far out of touch with reality and overly-self-entitled that it is a little disturbing... but back to the point, i don't roll in these circles and even i am aware of this philosophy for GNU projects... but aside from that leah should have learned what her decision would mean before making it.
if you don't particularly care for ideals of ownership or materialism then this isn't so objectionable. it makes a lot of sense, because then you don't even see the project as 'yours' and doing so is obviously counter to the ideals of the GNU project and FSF.
however, the sad practical reality of the world is that most people care a great deal about these kinds of things - its a part of why there is so much proprietary software, and also why many places i have worked forbid GPL dependencies, often in a list of "free software licenses we can't allow in dependencies" along with some statement about why - which is usually about how its 'infectious' nature means that it can't be used without forcing other parts of a product to be made into GPL software - an unacceptable price to pay, because the freedom to keep things private is considered as being so valuable.
"you can use our free (as in speech, not beer) software freely, but provided that you sacrifice your freedom of ownership on your own software"
this is another one of those kinds of statements i generalised as with "you aren't allowed your freedom because <incomprehensible jibberish>"
i don't think its a big leap to consider that sort of statement mind boggling from a philosophical standpoint - you want to advocate freedom with something that curtails freedom?
its the same principle with the idea that GNU projects are somehow owned by GNU, and that this is irreversible. again, its trying to advocate the philosophy by doing something that is counter to it.
now, i don't consider the maintainer in this case to be in the right. they should have been aware that this is the nature of GNU projects. i also consider her attitude to be so far out of touch with reality and overly-self-entitled that it is a little disturbing... but back to the point, i don't roll in these circles and even i am aware of this philosophy for GNU projects... but aside from that leah should have learned what her decision would mean before making it.
LR> I'm declaring here and now to the whole world that Libreboot is no longer LR> part of the GNU project. I do not believe that the FSF or the GNU project LR> deserve to exist.
Mistakes are everywhere and are done by everybody. A mistake was done by some people in FSF, the reaction is exaggerated to say the least. Furthermore, it's not clear whether or not the fired person was fired for being a trans. In fact in an email in the thread Stallman says:
The dismissal of the staff person was not because of her gender. Her gender now is the same as it was when we hired her. It was not an issue then, and it is not an issue now.
Whatever the case is, even though I know null about the project, I can easily say that Leah Rowe, whoever she might be, is apparently toxic for the project. Hopefully, given that it's free software, the other maintainers can get rid of her.