Delete abortion joke

Delete abortion joke

[rain1]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 229 bytes --]

Hello

I propose the following patch, which deletes the abortion joke from the 
glibc manual. The joke does not provide any useful information about the 
abort() function so removing it will not hinder use of glibc.

Thank you.


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-manual-startup.texi-remove-abortion-joke-from-the-do.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff; name=0001-manual-startup.texi-remove-abortion-joke-from-the-do.patch, Size: 1020 bytes --]

From d8cae2653abb0c9b4c63649cac5861ca44b342e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Raymond Nicholson <rain1@airmail.cc>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:00:34 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] * manual/startup.texi: remove abortion joke from the
 documentation of abort().

---
 manual/startup.texi | 8 --------
 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/manual/startup.texi b/manual/startup.texi
index 7395d32dd0..21c48cd037 100644
--- a/manual/startup.texi
+++ b/manual/startup.texi
@@ -1005,14 +1005,6 @@ This function actually terminates the process by raising a
 intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
 @end deftypefun
 
-@c Put in by rms.  Don't remove.
-@cartouche
-@strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
-may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
-calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
-acceptable way of terminating a program.
-@end cartouche
-
 @node Termination Internals
 @subsection Termination Internals
 
-- 
2.17.0

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:07 PM,  <rain1@airmail.cc> wrote:
>
> I propose the following patch, which deletes the abortion joke from the
> glibc manual. The joke does not provide any useful information about the
> abort() function so removing it will not hinder use of glibc.

Ugh, is that still there?   It wasn't funny twenty years ago and it's
only gotten less funny since.  I'm in favor of removing it.  Any
objections?

zw

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Ondřej Bílka]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:58:19PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:07 PM,  <rain1@airmail.cc> wrote:
> >
> > I propose the following patch, which deletes the abortion joke from the
> > glibc manual. The joke does not provide any useful information about the
> > abort() function so removing it will not hinder use of glibc.
> 
> Ugh, is that still there?   It wasn't funny twenty years ago and it's
> only gotten less funny since.  I'm in favor of removing it.  Any
> objections?
> 
Objection, it became funny again with Trump's administration. 

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Ondřej Bílka <neleai@seznam.cz> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:58:19PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:07 PM,  <rain1@airmail.cc> wrote:
>> >
>> > I propose the following patch, which deletes the abortion joke from the
>> > glibc manual. The joke does not provide any useful information about the
>> > abort() function so removing it will not hinder use of glibc.
>>
>> Ugh, is that still there?   It wasn't funny twenty years ago and it's
>> only gotten less funny since.  I'm in favor of removing it.  Any
>> objections?
>>
> Objection, it became funny again with Trump's administration.

Oddly enough, I think Trump's election made it even less funny.  But
also, whether or not you think it's a good joke - and I want to
reiterate that I don't think it was _ever_ a good joke - joking about
this particular topic is deeply inappropriate for The Gnu C Library
Manual, in my opinion.

zw

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Florian Weimer]

> I propose the following patch, which deletes the abortion joke from the 
> glibc manual.

I'm not sure if it was intended as a joke.  People quite literally
believe such things.

I think we can remove the note because it's not in one of the formally
Invariant Sections, so let's do it.

I believe you don't have commit access yourself.  Should I push this
along with a suitable ChangeLog entry?

We should also clean up the language regarding the risk of
distributing cryptography code.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
...
> We should also clean up the language regarding the risk of
> distributing cryptography code.

I have a patch in hand that does that (just drops the entire section -
we can't practically keep it up to date so better not to get into it
at all).

zw

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Florian Weimer]

* Zack Weinberg:

> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> ...
>> We should also clean up the language regarding the risk of
>> distributing cryptography code.
>
> I have a patch in hand that does that (just drops the entire section -
> we can't practically keep it up to date so better not to get into it
> at all).

Sounds good.  Please also remove all references to FIPS, which are
outdated as well.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Paul Eggert]

I agree with removing this joke. A bit of humor is fine - indeed, the manual 
could use a bit more than it has - but this attempt at humor does not work. The 
manual should be high-quality, and that includes high-quality jokes.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 04/28/2018 01:58 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:07 PM,  <rain1@airmail.cc> wrote:
>>
>> I propose the following patch, which deletes the abortion joke from the
>> glibc manual. The joke does not provide any useful information about the
>> abort() function so removing it will not hinder use of glibc.
> 
> Ugh, is that still there?   It wasn't funny twenty years ago and it's
> only gotten less funny since.  I'm in favor of removing it.  Any
> objections?

I'm with Florian and Paul, the joke is not in an invariant section (which
I would also like to remove, but that's another story), and is not appropriate
for a technical manual. I had never noticed the joke myself or I would have
proposed removal earlier.

Please remove the joke in a single commit and not mix the removal with
anything else.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

I have pushed the following, with attribution to Raymond.

zw

---
 ChangeLog           | 4 ++++
 manual/startup.texi | 8 --------
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index 3ec5164008..881cd27eaf 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2018-04-30  Raymond Nicholson <rain1@airmail.cc>
+
+	* manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate joke.
+
 2018-04-27  Adhemerval Zanella  <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
 
 	* sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/readahead.c: Remove file.
diff --git a/manual/startup.texi b/manual/startup.texi
index 7395d32dd0..21c48cd037 100644
--- a/manual/startup.texi
+++ b/manual/startup.texi
@@ -1005,14 +1005,6 @@ This function actually terminates the process by raising a
 intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
 @end deftypefun
 
-@c Put in by rms.  Don't remove.
-@cartouche
-@strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
-may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
-calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
-acceptable way of terminating a program.
-@end cartouche
-
 @node Termination Internals
 @subsection Termination Internals
 
-- 
2.17.0

Re: delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

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.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 997 bytes --]

El dl 07 de 05 de 2018 a les 20:50 -0300, Alexandre Oliva va escriure:
> How about replacing the current joke with:
> 
>   there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
>   Aborted (core dumped)

Fine option. Both could be included.

El dl 07 de 05 de 2018 a les 21:55 -0400, Richard Stallman va escriure:
>   > @c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.
> Ok with me.
>   > @strong{Richard says:}
> "Warning from Stallman" would do the trick.

So it would be:

---
@c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.
@cartouche
@strong{Warning from Stallman:} [...]
@end cartouche

There used to be another joke about censorship here, but@enddots{}
@*@emph{Aborted (core dumped)}
---

To those opposing any replacement, I call upon your fun powers: do you
have any idea to improve the quality of these jokes?

Your answer does not invalidate your opposition. Also, committing this
does not mean the end of the issue.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> 3 - Yay (for removal)
> 1 - Nay
> 5 - Abstain 

> Do we remove the joke?

If we were voting rather than building consensus, I would say we would
remove it.

> There is no GNU policy for conflict between GNU package maintainers.

Maybe we don't need one.

When GNU requests appointed maintainers to make a certain change, we
should all be aligned in voting, consensus or whatever decision making
process.

When GNU doesn't, we are just bound by our general commitment to GNU and
should proceed in ways that we believe best serve its interests, and
those of the specific project.

IMHO :-)

> Why is one abortion joke better than a whole chapter on censorship that
> more people can understand?

Because we're humans.  Humor has a way of breaking mind barriers that a
whole chapter doesn't.  It requires forming connections in ways that
regular prose doesn't.  It's a very powerful tool to speak truth to
power.

(I'm not saying this specific joke displays these features, mind you,
just answering your question with a general notion that reflects my
understanding and personal experience as a writer and public speaker)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 05:20 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> How about replacing the current joke with:
> 
>    there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
>    Aborted (core dumped)

That is actually quite witty and maybe an accurate description of the 
current situation.

Siddhesh

Re: delete abortion joke

[Russ Allbery]

Don Barry <don@sirtf.com> writes:

> My guess is that none of those criticizing Richard here are actually
> members of the FSF.  Yes, they are employed to work on FSF projects, but
> their decision was made by corporate interests, not by solidarity with
> the interests on the principles upon which the FSF was founded.

Speaking as someone who is not a glibc maintainer or contributor (just a
user and an interested bystander), but who has been an FSF associate
member and financial supporter for fifteen years, I think Carlos is doing
an excellent job managing this conflict and completely agree with the
approach that he's taking.  He's trying to avoid binary choices, dig
deeper into the motivations of the conflicted parties, and look for
creative alternative solutions, and he's doing a much better job at it
than I would have managed.

For whatever it's worth (which I don't think is a ton, but since you
specifically called out FSF members such as myself), I have been delighted
with the community consensus model that has been used for glibc
development of late and think it serves the mission of the FSF extremely
well, including in steering the delicate path between empowering active
contributors and avoiding giving those funded to contribute as part of
their jobs too heavy a hand.

-- 
Russ Allbery (eagle@eyrie.org)              <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: delete abortion joke

[DJ Delorie]

I don't recognize your email, so perhaps you're new to this group.  If
so, welcome!  Please keep in mind that people's opinions are their own
(unless stated otherwise) and assume the best when interpreting what
they say.

Don Barry <don@sirtf.com> writes:
> My guess is that none of those criticizing Richard here are actually
> members of the FSF.

Most of us have been contributing to GNU projects for many years, if not
decades, both as part of our jobs and outside of them.  I've been
contributing to GNU projects for 30 years now, and have even contributed
to changes in the GPL itself.  Donating money to the FSF proper is not
required in order to be a loyal supporter.

> not by solidarity with the interests on the principles upon which the
> FSF was founded.

See https://www.fsf.org/about/ for documentation on the principles on
which the FSF was founded.  It's all about software freedom.  Other
topics, including but not limited to government censorship and abortion,
are not listed.

Also, be careful to not confuse the FSF's principles with RMS's
principles.  The FSF is run by a board of trustees, not by RMS alone.

> What does it mean to let "democracy" among this much broader layer of
> people non-aligned with the FSF prevail?

This is not about alignment with the FSF, and I object to your
implication that the GNU maintainers are not aligned with the FSF's
goals.  This is about one person (RMS) dictating changes that are
outside of the FSF's stated charter, not following the group's policies
for managing change, and against the will of those who are charged by
the FSF with maintaining the software.

It has turned into a heated discussion of HOW we manage change, not WHAT
the change is.  Are we a cathedral, or a bazaar?  Autocracy, or
democracy?  Are we strict, or flexible?  How much control do maintainers
and stewards really have?  Have the rules been followed?  Do the rules
need to change?

This isn't the first time, either.  GCC already went through this, and
forked (egcs), and has benefited greatly.  Glibc itself "forked" at
2.2.4, and underwent drastic change again when the new consensus-based
model was introduced, each time benefitting from it.  Perhaps it's
happening again, perhaps it isn't.  At least we have the freedom to
discuss it :-)

> If there is to be democracy, it should be within those who signed on to
> the FSF for its mission,

Ah, plutocracy - government by those with money.  I prefer to "sign on"
with the FSF in other ways, like by volunteering my time, or promoting
software freedom.

> and who see there's a component to its work beyond that of simply
> providing a base of software for corporations to build upon and profit
> from.

Well, that would be us, the maintainers, so... whew :-)

> Identity politics, in alliance with . . .

Such political discourse is definitely off-topic for this list.

> In reality, what is being proposed is

... the removal of an off-topic joke from a technical manual.  That's
all.  Please don't make it more than that, because it isn't.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Too serious. How about this one?

  > @c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.

Ok with me.

  > @strong{Richard says:}

I think it won't be clear who this refers to.
My last name is the crucial thing for that.
Also, "says" doesn't add to the humor.

"Warning from Stallman" would do the trick.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/07/2018 08:46 PM, Don Barry wrote:
> As to the language of "safe spaces" and "triggering" that have been used
> to float the idea of an expropriation (or failing that, a neutering of
> the role of RMS), that's plainly political cover, chaff to obscure the
> hostility to RMS and the FSF.  Identity politics, in alliance with
> postmodernism, has a long right-wing history, promoted deeply by the
> Democratic party, to weaken actual "left" thought.  In reality, what is
> being proposed is the compartmentalizing of people's prejudices as a
> social good, including prejudices against the founding principles of the
> GNU projects, by declaring any mention of those principles, or even
> statements vaguely in line with them, "triggering" and thus to be
> expunged.

Richard's role is not neutered. He is the GNU Project leader. The point
being made is that GNU package maintainers have independence to implement
what is required, and be trusted by Richard when their input is
overwhelmingly negative regarding the joke aspect of the text. He appointed
us after all, and trusted us with the project.

I am a GNU package maintainer for the GNU C Library, and I support the FSF,
but I do not agree that this text is the best way to support getting our
message across.

There have been 3 GNU package maintainers who publicly said they did not
like the joke, and only 1 (Alexandre Oliva) who wanted the joke kept.

If you want democracy with the FSF, that's:

3 - Yay (for removal)
1 - Nay
5 - Abstain 

There are 9 (10 if you count Roland) GNU package maintainers for glibc.

Do we remove the joke?

There is no GNU policy for conflict between GNU package maintainers.

The GNU package maintainers need to discuss issues among themselves.

As of today we are still discussing the issue.

> What does it say when a certain layer declares unacceptable the
> elementary and even rather banal defense of rights like abortion through
> satire which is so trivial that it hardly requires a defense?  There
> isn't the slightest progressive content in their criticisms.  It is
> unashamedly and unabashedly right-wing. 

You have grouped together all responses into one, because you had to,
because to respond to each of the authors on this thread would take too
long for you to do effectively. I understand that. However, each author
articulated a slightly different point.

However, what you miss is that there are serious patches, to turn the joke
into a whole info section talking about censorship, but Richard has stated
that the joke is better, despite the objections.

My position as a GNU package maintainer for glibc is that satire is too
complicated to use across all of the cultures that use GNU software, we
should speak plainly instead and talk clearly about the issues at hand.

Why is one abortion joke better than a whole chapter on censorship that
more people can understand?

That's what I don't understand.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: delete abortion joke

[Don Barry]

I support, 100%, Richard Stallman in this.  Let me explain why.

Those who insist on "consensus" and "democracy" may or may not be
well-intentioned, but the devil is very much in the details.

My guess is that none of those criticizing Richard here are actually
members of the FSF.  Yes, they are employed to work on FSF projects, but
their decision was made by corporate interests, not by solidarity with
the interests on the principles upon which the FSF was founded.

What does it mean to let "democracy" among this much broader layer of
people non-aligned with the FSF prevail?  It means effectively, a
rejection that FSF represents something more than simply the pragmatic
advantage of software with source code available.  It means,
realistically, dissolving the Free Software Movement into the "Open
Source" domain, which was, if we are to be honest, was a *reaction
against*, and not a friendly alliance with, the free software ethos.

If there is to be democracy, it should be within those who signed on to
the FSF for its mission, and who see there's a component to its work
beyond that of simply providing a base of software for corporations to
build upon and profit from.

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.  They cannot repudiate the GPL, of course, but they could,
with a sufficient independent period of stewardship, effectively neuter
it through assurances that no actual enforcement was likely, and in any
event divorce it from the larger body of advocacy which the FSF has
engaged in.

I have run GNU software since the early 1980s.  I was deeply moved by
the GNU Manifesto, and though I see the necessity, as a socialist, to go
even deeper into the structure of society to realize its aims, those
aims are ones in which I am in full agreement, as far as they go.  I
have seen others arrive to take and benefit from the GNU world over many
years, with a certain gleam of how they could profit from GNU software,
with little thought to the overall ethos that made it possible in an
earlier epoch that did not have broad industrial contribution.  And I've
seen industrial contributors, tied by profit and its thousands of
threads, enter as the majority contribution for some central GNU
projects, but without the slightest interest, and even some hostility
to, the GNU mission.

As to the language of "safe spaces" and "triggering" that have been used
to float the idea of an expropriation (or failing that, a neutering of
the role of RMS), that's plainly political cover, chaff to obscure the
hostility to RMS and the FSF.  Identity politics, in alliance with
postmodernism, has a long right-wing history, promoted deeply by the
Democratic party, to weaken actual "left" thought.  In reality, what is
being proposed is the compartmentalizing of people's prejudices as a
social good, including prejudices against the founding principles of the
GNU projects, by declaring any mention of those principles, or even
statements vaguely in line with them, "triggering" and thus to be
expunged.

What does it say when a certain layer declares unacceptable the
elementary and even rather banal defense of rights like abortion through
satire which is so trivial that it hardly requires a defense?  There
isn't the slightest progressive content in their criticisms.  It is
unashamedly and unabashedly right-wing.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Zach van Rijn]

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 20:50 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, Javiera Serrano Polo <javier@jasp.net> wrote:
> 
> > El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 22:03 -0400, Richard Stallman va
> > escriure:
> > > Adding a note attributing the warning to me is ok with me,
> > > but I agree that it should be stated more clearly.
> > > Perhaps "Warning from Richard Stallman."
> > > 
> > > Please use this as the comment:
> > > 
> > >   @c Richard Stallman says to preserve the following text.
> > Too serious. How about this one?
> > @c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't
> > remove.
> 
> How about replacing the current joke with:
> 
>   there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
>   Aborted (core dumped)
> 

By doing so ulimit -c library.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, Javiera Serrano Polo <javier@jasp.net> wrote:

> El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 22:03 -0400, Richard Stallman va escriure:
>> Adding a note attributing the warning to me is ok with me,
>> but I agree that it should be stated more clearly.
>> Perhaps "Warning from Richard Stallman."
>> 
>> Please use this as the comment:
>> 
>>   @c Richard Stallman says to preserve the following text.

> Too serious. How about this one?

> @c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.

How about replacing the current joke with:

  there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
  Aborted (core dumped)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 685 bytes --]

El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 22:03 -0400, Richard Stallman va escriure:
> Adding a note attributing the warning to me is ok with me,
> but I agree that it should be stated more clearly.
> Perhaps "Warning from Richard Stallman."
> 
> Please use this as the comment:
> 
>   @c Richard Stallman says to preserve the following text.

Too serious. How about this one?

@c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.

@strong{Richard says:}

El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 22:04 -0400, Richard Stallman va escriure:
> I would like to find out what Leslie Jones thinks of the gag rule
> joke,
> Any suggestions?

http://www.fanmail (dot) biz/112281.html

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

Adding a note attributing the warning to me is ok with me,
but I agree that it should be stated more clearly.
Perhaps "Warning from Richard Stallman."

Please use this as the comment:

  @c Richard Stallman says to preserve the following text.

It's not merely a request.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Florian Weimer]

* Javiera Serrano Polo:

> --- a/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 05:58:31.000000000 +0200
> +++ b/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 06:02:43.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1005,6 +1005,14 @@
>  intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
>  @end deftypefun
>  
> +@c Requested by rms.  Don't remove.
> +@cartouche
> +@strong{RMS Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations

You should spell out the abbreviation.  It is ambiguous in a medical
context.

> +may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
> +calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
> +acceptable way of terminating a program.
> +@end cartouche

I still don't think this is appropriate, and I don't think it should
be added back.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 285 bytes --]

El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 14:13 -0400, Carlos O'Donell va escriure:
> Please review the contribution checklist:
> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist

Feedback on the content would be appreciated first. There seems to be
consensus that consensus is nice.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/06/2018 02:04 PM, Javiera Serrano Polo wrote:
> --- a/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 05:58:31.000000000 +0200
> +++ b/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 06:02:43.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1005,6 +1005,14 @@
>  intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
>  @end deftypefun
>  
> +@c Requested by rms.  Don't remove.
> +@cartouche
> +@strong{RMS Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
> +may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
> +calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
> +acceptable way of terminating a program.
> +@end cartouche
> +
>  @node Termination Internals
>  @subsection Termination Internals
>  
> 

Thank you very much for the patch.

Please review the contribution checklist:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 613 bytes --]

--- a/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 05:58:31.000000000 +0200
+++ b/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 06:02:43.000000000 +0200
@@ -1005,6 +1005,14 @@
 intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
 @end deftypefun
 
+@c Requested by rms.  Don't remove.
+@cartouche
+@strong{RMS Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
+may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
+calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
+acceptable way of terminating a program.
+@end cartouche
+
 @node Termination Internals
 @subsection Termination Internals
 

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

The Mexico City policy is clearly counter to the GNU project's philosphy:
<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html>

Removing the "joke" now feels like a direct attack on Michelle Wolf and 
her right to satire. Are the glibc maintainers ok with looking like 
they're siding with the extremists who savagely attacked her for her 
remarks last week?

https://youtu.be/DDbx1uArVOM?t=8m14s
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/29/michelle-wolfs-caustic-comedy-routine-at-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner-annotated/>

The comment, which I'd call a paradox rather than a joke, is entirely 
appropriate as an easter egg or reminder about absurd regulations and 
the difficulties of making and distributing free software (or exercising 
other individual liberties), which is what GNU is about.

It should stay were it was.

Federico (FSFE supporter)

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 787 bytes --]

El ds 05 de 05 de 2018 a les 01:06 -0300, Alexandre Oliva va escriure:
> it is probably hardly ever read, considering it only goes in
> printed versions of the manual.

http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Aborting-a-Program.html
https://packages.debian.org/sid/glibc-doc-reference

> Why are others responding with such passion for the removal of a
> passage
> that is as unimportant as you describe it?  I struggle to understand
> it.
> Can you offer any theory to explain it?

Humor issues in collaborative projects are nothing new. Some users do
not understand jokes, no matter how intelligent they are. Other people
are significantly happier with funny environments. Both groups deserve
respect; when you realize this, you are able to find solutions.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > +weak_alias (abort, murder_innocent_process)

This would be funny if given a suitable conditional

#ifdef REPUBLICAN
...
#endif

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 655 bytes --]

--- a/stdlib/stdlib.h	2018-05-04 04:41:52.000000000 +0200
+++ b/stdlib/stdlib.h	2018-05-04 04:49:06.000000000 +0200
@@ -584,8 +584,14 @@
      __THROW __attribute_malloc__ __attribute_alloc_size__ ((2)) __wur;
 #endif
 
+#if !defined ENABLE_FUN || defined I_OPPOSE_CENSORSHIP
 /* Abort execution and generate a core-dump.  */
 extern void abort (void) __THROW __attribute__ ((__noreturn__));
+#else
+extern void abort (void) __THROW __attribute__ ((__noreturn__))
+     __attribute__ ((error (
+          "Political regulations prohibit calling this function")));
+#endif
 
 
 /* Register a function to be called when `exit' is called.  */

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javier Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 243 bytes --]

--- a/stdlib/abort.c	2018-05-03 13:01:48.000000000 +0200
+++ b/stdlib/abort.c	2018-05-03 13:04:23.000000000 +0200
@@ -121,3 +121,4 @@
     ABORT_INSTRUCTION;
 }
 libc_hidden_def (abort)
+weak_alias (abort, murder_innocent_process)

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Current behavior of abort() is unacceptable: it terminates the process
  > unconditionally. glibc users should be free to decide whether a call to
  > abort() succeeds. It should be a user right, not a developer imposition.

The GNU system already gives users this control.  For instance, you
can run the program under GDB and put a breakpoint on abort.  That's
how I normally run Emacs, for instance.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Rical Jasan]

On 05/02/2018 12:00 AM, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> Current behavior of abort() is unacceptable: it terminates the process
> unconditionally. glibc users should be free to decide whether a call to
> abort() succeeds. It should be a user right, not a developer imposition.
> 
> Although I am in favor of user rights, some freedoms should be
> restricted. For instance, calls to kill() from unprivileged users should
> fail with "thou shalt not kill".

+1 for the individual vs. social dynamic, but it needs a patch.  ;)

Rical

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javier Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 393 bytes --]

Current behavior of abort() is unacceptable: it terminates the process
unconditionally. glibc users should be free to decide whether a call to
abort() succeeds. It should be a user right, not a developer imposition.

Although I am in favor of user rights, some freedoms should be
restricted. For instance, calls to kill() from unprivileged users should
fail with "thou shalt not kill".

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]