From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 90675 invoked by alias); 8 May 2018 10:10:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 90626 invoked by uid 89); 8 May 2018 10:10:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=directed, umbrella, threat, takeover X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Message-ID: <1525774195.7567.739.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: delete abortion joke From: Torvald Riegel To: Don Barry Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Date: Tue, 08 May 2018 10:10:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <56f702bc-8cf9-712d-a913-ae3fb72bdff3@sirtf.com> References: <56f702bc-8cf9-712d-a913-ae3fb72bdff3@sirtf.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00241.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 20:46 -0400, Don Barry wrote: > The "threats", such as they are, to fork glibc are no different from > various other projects which have emerged that are hostile to the FSF, > and who see the body of work which emerged from its efforts of many > years as fruits they would love to take, but which are saddled, > unfortunately in their eyes, with such things as the GPL and its Golden > Rule base. You make several wide-ranging statements and accusations. Let's be more specific, and see whether your comments actually apply to the discussion we're having in the glibc project right now. AFAIR, I've been the person who suggested that we should fork iff there's no acknowledgment that glibc is a community-driven, consensus-based project. You posted to this list, so the context of your remarks is this list and this thread specifically. Which means you are saying that my statement about forking is a "threat", and that I'd be hostile to the FSF, and dislike the GPL. Do you actually have any proof for that statement? Let me explain what's going on here. First of all, this isn't a "threat", because that would mean I'd care whether glibc was under the GNU umbrella or not. That's not the point. My statement was directed at my fellow developers, because I think it's a problem for the developer community if the there's an undermining of the consensus-based process that we have established in recent years and that is serving glibc very well. Preventing this problem is what I care about -- it just happened to come from RMS, but that's not essential. Forking is an obvious way of working around the problem, but there are others. One that I explicitly called out is RMS (or the FSF) acknowledging that glibc is indeed a community-driven, consensus-based project. Furthermore, you certainly know that forking wouldn't change the license; so much about your claim that this is about avoiding the GPL. Finally, regarding "efforts of many years as fruits they would love to take": please understand who's doing the work to keep glibc going, and who has argued in favor of removing the "joke". You make it sounds as this is some hostile takeover -- and accuse the very developers that have done a large part of the work for many years. That doesn't make sense.