From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 97305 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2018 09:21:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gnutools-advocacy-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: gnutools-advocacy-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 94170 invoked by uid 89); 6 Oct 2018 09:21:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.100.1 on sourceware.org X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,LIKELY_SPAM_BODY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=advertising, privately, richard.guenther@gmail.com, richardguenthergmailcom X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,LIKELY_SPAM_BODY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org X-Spam-Level: * X-HELO: linux-libre.fsfla.org From: Alexandre Oliva To: Richard Biener Cc: gnutools-advocacy@gcc.gnu.org, David Edelsohn , "Richard M. Stallman" , "Carlos O'Donell" , iains.gcc@gmail.com Subject: Re: GNU toolchain web page Organization: Free thinker, not speaking for FSF Latin America References: <29850D75-B7F9-41FA-8E38-B8B4915D36BC@gmail.com> <45AA782B-502B-4BE9-9CBB-76917338CBD0@gmail.com> Errors-To: aoliva@lxoliva.fsfla.org Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 00:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <45AA782B-502B-4BE9-9CBB-76917338CBD0@gmail.com> (Richard Biener's message of "Sat, 06 Oct 2018 10:43:53 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 X-SW-Source: 2018-q4/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 On Oct 6, 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > It's the freedom of choice for the contributor. Individual GNU contributors can indeed pick their own poisons and use them privately, as long as the outputs, if any, are sufficiently standards-compliant that they can be further used indistinctly with Free Software tools. However, private use doesn't encompass advertising them, or inviting other users into the same trap. >From the context, it seems to me that Carlos was not suggesting the tool just for his own private use (why would he even name it?), but for use by other members of the GNU Tools advocacy project, for collaborative editing. That would not only exclude myself and possibly other GNU contributors, but also amount to advocating tools that oppose the very purpose of GNU. Google doc is SaaSS, which is equivalent to proprietary software that spies on the user and with a universal backdoor. It also refuses to run unless the user allows a huge amount of proprietary software to run on their own computer, which exposes the user to further objectionable risk. It would be self defeating to suggest anyone to use it, therefore we shouldn't do that. If we can't use Free Software tools for collaborative editing, we shouldn't use any. -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo Be the change, be Free! FSF Latin America board member GNU Toolchain Engineer Free Software Evangelist