* Re: delete abortion joke
@ 2018-05-08 0:46 Don Barry
2018-05-08 1:28 ` Carlos O'Donell
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Don Barry @ 2018-05-08 0:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-alpha
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: delete abortion joke
2018-05-08 0:46 delete abortion joke Don Barry
@ 2018-05-08 1:28 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-05-08 4:05 ` Alexandre Oliva
2018-05-08 2:26 ` DJ Delorie
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2018-05-08 1:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Don Barry, libc-alpha
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: delete abortion joke
2018-05-08 1:28 ` Carlos O'Donell
@ 2018-05-08 4:05 ` Alexandre Oliva
0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2018-05-08 4:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carlos O'Donell; +Cc: Don Barry, libc-alpha
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: delete abortion joke
2018-05-08 0:46 delete abortion joke Don Barry
2018-05-08 1:28 ` Carlos O'Donell
@ 2018-05-08 2:26 ` DJ Delorie
2018-05-08 3:06 ` Russ Allbery
2018-05-08 10:10 ` Torvald Riegel
3 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2018-05-08 2:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Don Barry; +Cc: libc-alpha
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: delete abortion joke
2018-05-08 0:46 delete abortion joke Don Barry
2018-05-08 1:28 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-05-08 2:26 ` DJ Delorie
@ 2018-05-08 3:06 ` Russ Allbery
2018-05-08 10:10 ` Torvald Riegel
3 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Russ Allbery @ 2018-05-08 3:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Don Barry; +Cc: libc-alpha
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/>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: delete abortion joke
2018-05-08 0:46 delete abortion joke Don Barry
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2018-05-08 3:06 ` Russ Allbery
@ 2018-05-08 10:10 ` Torvald Riegel
3 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Torvald Riegel @ 2018-05-08 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Don Barry; +Cc: libc-alpha
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-01 3:03 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Richard Stallman
@ 2018-05-03 15:00 DJ Delorie
2018-05-03 17:05 ` Javier Serrano Polo
1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2018-05-03 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rms; +Cc: libc-alpha
Wow, I check my email once while on vacation, and this is what I find...
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
> first wrote it.
I know many people who have been through various pregnancy-related
traumas, including abortion, and on their behalf, I strongly object to
having this text - or any similar text - in the manual. My own
daughter's birth was problematic, and I can't imaging thinking "gee, I'd
like to read about this in a programming manual some day". It's never a
case of "some day you'll laugh about it" because I never have.
Loss of a child, for any reason, is NEVER a joking matter, directly or
indirectly.
> Please do not remove it.
Censorship from RMS? Ironic.
> GNU is not a purely technical project, so the fact that this is
> not strictly and grimly technical is not a reason to remove this.
The fact that it's utterly tasteless and irrelevent, is.
As for the argument that certain words might be triggers, well, words
have multiple meanings and *any* word could be a trigger. There's
little we can do about that, other than to be respectful and tactful
when considering our documentation needs.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <orin883lcl.fsf@lxoliva.fsfla.org>]
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
[not found] <orin883lcl.fsf@lxoliva.fsfla.org>
@ 2018-05-01 3:03 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-01 13:54 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-05-01 16:12 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Zack Weinberg
0 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2018-05-01 3:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-alpha; +Cc: Alexandre Oliva, rms
[[[ 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. ]]]
The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
first wrote it. Please do not remove it.
GNU is not a purely technical project, so the fact that this is
not strictly and grimly technical is not a reason to remove this.
Please ack.
--
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-01 3:03 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Richard Stallman
@ 2018-05-01 13:54 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-05-02 3:11 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-01 16:12 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Zack Weinberg
1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2018-05-01 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rms, libc-alpha; +Cc: Alexandre Oliva
On 04/30/2018 11:03 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ 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. ]]]
>
> The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
> first wrote it. Please do not remove it.
The problem with the joke is that it touches a difficult and complex
topic, namely abortion, and this could be a trigger for certain
individuals causing them to relive a traumatic memory. I cannot condone
that we add triggers like these to a technical manual, particularly
when individuals would not expect such jokes in the manual. It can do
harm to these individuals when they expect to find themselves in a safe
space.
> GNU is not a purely technical project, so the fact that this is
> not strictly and grimly technical is not a reason to remove this.
I agree, but that's not the only reason I supported the consensus
for removal (see above).
I suggest two courses of action.
* We avoid jokes. They can be misinterpreted by individuals
without the cultural background to understand the joke. Instead of
the joke we should just state clearly exactly what we are worried
about in as direct a language as we possibly can, and include a
trigger warning (as is good practice). I would accept such a patch.
I encourage Alex Oliva to draft such a patch and propose it for
inclusion with appropriate references.
* We use another venue to discuss such issues. This is my recommended
course of action. It places this discussion in a venue that has the
appropriate context and support for such discussions. For example
these issues could be brought up with NARAL [1] and we could support
them with more than just jokes.
We should show our support clearly instead of using a joke.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.
[1] https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-01 13:54 ` Carlos O'Donell
@ 2018-05-02 3:11 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-02 6:26 ` Ondřej Bílka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2018-05-02 3:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carlos O'Donell; +Cc: libc-alpha, aoliva, rms
[[[ 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. ]]]
> The problem with the joke is that it touches a difficult and complex
> topic, namely abortion, and this could be a trigger for certain
> individuals causing them to relive a traumatic memory.
It is not the joke that might lead people to think about abortion --
it doesn't refer directly to that -- but rather the name of the
library function, "abort", which is documented there.
Therefore, if you think that this is a real concern, let's put a
trigger warning at the start of the section. I propose thus text:
Warning: this section contains function names that might perhaps
provoke unpleasant memories for some readers. We suggest readers
use their discretion about whether to read further.
A GNU manual, like a course in history, is not meant to be a "safe
space". It is meant to address a subject. It must cover the function
"abort", just as a course in Renaissance history must cover witch
trials and the inquisition.
However, there is no reason not to include the trigger warning if that
is of service to people.
Whether the joke is included has no effect on this issue.
Giving birth is far more traumatic than having an abortion, so we
might want to put a similar warning in sections that mention child
processes.
--
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-02 3:11 ` Richard Stallman
@ 2018-05-02 6:26 ` Ondřej Bílka
2018-05-02 7:00 ` Javier Serrano Polo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Ondřej Bílka @ 2018-05-02 6:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: Carlos O'Donell, libc-alpha, aoliva
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 11:10:53PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ 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. ]]]
>
> > The problem with the joke is that it touches a difficult and complex
> > topic, namely abortion, and this could be a trigger for certain
> > individuals causing them to relive a traumatic memory.
>
> It is not the joke that might lead people to think about abortion --
> it doesn't refer directly to that -- but rather the name of the
> library function, "abort", which is documented there.
>
> Therefore, if you think that this is a real concern, let's put a
> trigger warning at the start of the section. I propose thus text:
>
> Warning: this section contains function names that might perhaps
> provoke unpleasant memories for some readers. We suggest readers
> use their discretion about whether to read further.
>
> A GNU manual, like a course in history, is not meant to be a "safe
> space". It is meant to address a subject. It must cover the function
> "abort", just as a course in Renaissance history must cover witch
> trials and the inquisition.
>
> However, there is no reason not to include the trigger warning if that
> is of service to people.
>
> Whether the joke is included has no effect on this issue.
>
> Giving birth is far more traumatic than having an abortion, so we
> might want to put a similar warning in sections that mention child
> processes.
>
There should be following warning
* manual/process.texi: Warn about disadvantages of child process
diff --git a/manual/process.texi b/manual/process.texi
index b82b91f..6709e19 100644
--- a/manual/process.texi
+++ b/manual/process.texi
@@ -283,6 +283,10 @@ The child doesn't inherit alarms set by the parent process.
The set of pending signals (@pxref{Delivery of Signal}) for the child
process is cleared. (The child process inherits its mask of blocked
signals and signal actions from the parent process.)
+
+@item
+Warning: creating a child could take up to nine months and could consume all
+your resources.
@end itemize
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-05-02 6:26 ` Ondřej Bílka
@ 2018-05-02 7:00 ` Javier Serrano Polo
2018-05-02 7:16 ` Rical Jasan
2018-05-03 3:34 ` Richard Stallman
0 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Javier Serrano Polo @ 2018-05-02 7:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-alpha; +Cc: rms
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-05-02 7:00 ` Javier Serrano Polo
@ 2018-05-02 7:16 ` Rical Jasan
2018-05-03 3:34 ` Richard Stallman
1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Rical Jasan @ 2018-05-02 7:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: javier--CbphpPOVok9WFxGWvC7CbkqlsxDZyT; +Cc: libc-alpha, rms
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-05-02 7:00 ` Javier Serrano Polo
2018-05-02 7:16 ` Rical Jasan
@ 2018-05-03 3:34 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-03 6:08 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Alexandre Oliva
1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2018-05-03 3:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: javier--CbphpPOVok9WFxGWvC7CbkqlsxDZyT; +Cc: libc-alpha
[[[ 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
@ 2018-05-03 6:08 ` Alexandre Oliva
2018-05-05 15:44 ` Federico Leva (Nemo)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2018-05-03 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carlos O'Donell; +Cc: Zack Weinberg, rms, GNU C Library
On May 2, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/02/2018 08:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On May 2, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I do not think that this subject should be
>>> discussed at all within the GNU C Library Manual,
>>
>> Please stop pretending the subject of the snippet is abortion. The
>> topic is censorship, and the irony of a group censoring a denouncement
>> of censorship would be delicious if it weren't so tragic.
> If the topic is not about abortion
The topic of the censorship bill is abortion. That's what makes the
place suitable to criticize it.
> then please move the censorship discussion to the introduction of the
> manual and discuss censorship.
Moving it elsewhere, where it's less effective, and removing the humor,
that's one of the most effective ways to convey criticism and bypass
learned rejections to such criticism, is just a softer form of
censorship. To me it comes across as "ok, you want to speak, go ahead
and do so, but speak from this corner where pretty much nobody can see
you, without a microphone, and don't make any effective criticism."
RMS might still be able to come up with a clever way to jump through all
these hoops, but that doesn't make the proposed constraints cease to be
disguised attempts to hide or weaken the intended criticism.
If the censorship law was about methods of terminating insects,
terminate() in a C++ manual would be the best place to denounce it.
If it censored information about emergency exits, _exit() would be it.
The law in question censors information about abortion, so abort() is
the only reasonable place to put it.
A vague statement against censorship in general is nowhere as effective,
and I don't assume you or anyone else here to be naîve enough to think
it is.
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-01 3:03 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Richard Stallman
2018-05-01 13:54 ` Carlos O'Donell
@ 2018-05-01 16:12 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-05-02 3:11 ` Richard Stallman
1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Zack Weinberg @ 2018-05-01 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rms; +Cc: GNU C Library
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
> first wrote it. Please do not remove it.
Given the @c immediately above saying that you wrote it and did not
want it removed, we should have brought you into the discussion
earlier, and I regret not having thought of that. However, the passage
has already been removed, and if you want that change reverted, you
will have to find someone else willing to do that; I won't.
The only person who has spoken in favor of the passage, other than
yourself, made the same argument that you do -- the continued
importance of the *topic*. And I agree with you that the topic is
important. However, the GNU C Library Manual is an actively
inappropriate place to discuss it, as has been explained much more
eloquently by several other people already; I have nothing in
particular to add to their observations.
zw
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-01 16:12 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Zack Weinberg
@ 2018-05-02 3:11 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-03 4:36 ` Carlos O'Donell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2018-05-02 3:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: libc-alpha, rms
[[[ 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. ]]]
> However, the GNU C Library Manual is an actively
> inappropriate place to discuss it,
A serious discussion of an unrelated political issue would be a
strange digression. The joke is appropriate precisely because it is a
joke, and very short.
Since you understand it wasn't right to delete this without my
approval, would you please undo that mistake?
--
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-02 3:11 ` Richard Stallman
@ 2018-05-03 4:36 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-05-03 12:28 ` Florian Weimer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2018-05-03 4:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rms, Zack Weinberg, Alexandre Oliva; +Cc: libc-alpha
On 05/01/2018 11:11 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ 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. ]]]
>
> > However, the GNU C Library Manual is an actively
> > inappropriate place to discuss it,
>
> A serious discussion of an unrelated political issue would be a
> strange digression. The joke is appropriate precisely because it is a
> joke, and very short.
>
> Since you understand it wasn't right to delete this without my
> approval, would you please undo that mistake?
As a GNU Developer for the community I OK'd the patch.
As a GNU Developer I answer to the GNU Project.
I also apologize for not contacting you directly.
This does not change my position on the joke and it's relation to
abortion and censorship.
A large group of developers, serious senior developers, at least 3
project stewards (GNU Developers for the project), are indicating
that they do not share your same view on the joke. Please consider
their input and work with me to reach a consensus position.
The underlying notions that the joke tries to express are important
and I am more than willing to engage with you and Alex to write
new text and put it back into the manual to meet our needs to
express a viewpoint on censorship.
Let me propose another the following patch for discussion. It is
*not* a @cartouche, and will therefore be visible in all of our
info and html files (which is better IMO).
2018-05-03 Carlos O'Donell <carlos@systemhalted.org>
* manual/intro.texi (Government Censorship): New node.
diff --git a/manual/intro.texi b/manual/intro.texi
index cc9c99f543..b413652194 100644
--- a/manual/intro.texi
+++ b/manual/intro.texi
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ portability.
@menu
* Getting Started:: What this manual is for and how to use it.
+* Government Censorship:: Government censorship.
* Standards and Portability:: Standards and sources upon which the GNU
C library is based.
* Using the Library:: Some practical uses for the library.
@@ -29,7 +30,7 @@ portability.
this manual.
@end menu
-@node Getting Started, Standards and Portability, , Introduction
+@node Getting Started, Government Censorship, , Introduction
@section Getting Started
This manual is written with the assumption that you are at least
@@ -56,6 +57,21 @@ are writing your programs you can recognize @emph{when} to make use of
library functions, and @emph{where} in this manual you can find more
specific information about them.
+@node Government Censorship, Standards and Portability, Getting Started, Introduction
+@section Government Censorship
+@cindex censorship
+
+@string{Trigger warning: Talk of abortion.}
+
+The GNU project takes the position that government censorship should
+not be supported. Censorship threatens the distribution of information
+in ways that restricts the freedoms of our users and harms the creativity
+of the project.
+
+Censorship of technical information, cultural information, and even
+information related to human abortion (regardless of your position on
+the topic), should not be supported. Such censorship restricts the
+freedoms of all users.
@node Standards and Portability, Using the Library, Getting Started, Introduction
@section Standards and Portability
---
--
Cheers,
Carlos.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-03 4:36 ` Carlos O'Donell
@ 2018-05-03 12:28 ` Florian Weimer
2018-05-03 20:58 ` Alexandre Oliva
0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Florian Weimer @ 2018-05-03 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carlos O'Donell; +Cc: rms, Zack Weinberg, Alexandre Oliva, libc-alpha
* Carlos O'Donell:
> +@node Government Censorship, Standards and Portability, Getting Started, Introduction
> +@section Government Censorship
> +@cindex censorship
> +
> +@string{Trigger warning: Talk of abortion.}
> +
> +The GNU project takes the position that government censorship should
> +not be supported. Censorship threatens the distribution of information
> +in ways that restricts the freedoms of our users and harms the creativity
> +of the project.
> +
> +Censorship of technical information, cultural information, and even
> +information related to human abortion (regardless of your position on
> +the topic), should not be supported. Such censorship restricts the
> +freedoms of all users.
In most cultures, government restrictions on access to information
which is specifically designed to enable people to commit illegal acts
are not considered censorship. I don't think you can list abortion in
this context without taking sides.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-03 12:28 ` Florian Weimer
@ 2018-05-03 20:58 ` Alexandre Oliva
2018-05-04 1:09 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-05-04 2:56 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Siddhesh Poyarekar
0 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2018-05-03 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Florian Weimer; +Cc: Carlos O'Donell, rms, Zack Weinberg, libc-alpha
On May 3, 2018, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> In most cultures, government restrictions on access to information
> which is specifically designed to enable people to commit illegal acts
> are not considered censorship. I don't think you can list abortion in
> this context without taking sides.
There's law in the US that makes it a crime to publish information on
how to circumvent digital handcuffs, you know. Even if you rationalize
it and frame it with another term to make it more palatable, it's still
censorship of information for practical use.
GNU is the software development branch of the Free Software social and
political movement. We don't mind taking sides; in fact, if we didn't,
it wouldn't be a social and political movement. Our raison d'être are
the essential freedoms over information for practical use.
The law criticized in the snippet under dispute is one that denies
people the essential freedom to share information for practical use. It
is fundamentally at odds with the most essential core value of our
movement.
I'm very disappointed and baffled that an allusion to a taboo topic
that's two-levels removed, in a context in which the taboo topic is
already established and unavoidable, is enough for people to gang up
against not only the founder and leader of the movement, but also its
most fundamental value, and to take the opposite side, practicing
censorship and, by removing the criticism, taking the side of the
censors that established the denounced censorship law.
I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request
would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the
discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic. But no, the
project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of the
appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, to
betray the core values, to practice the opposite of what we should stand
for, so that we can have bland, pasteurized, neutral purely technical
documentation that won't bring anyone any moral discomfort. Way to go
to open sores hell: losing the moral backbone, standing for nothing,
giving up and betraying the essential freedoms. What a shame!
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-03 20:58 ` Alexandre Oliva
@ 2018-05-04 1:09 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-05-06 3:17 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-04 2:56 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Siddhesh Poyarekar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Zack Weinberg @ 2018-05-04 1:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Oliva; +Cc: Florian Weimer, Carlos O'Donell, rms, GNU C Library
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> I'm very disappointed and baffled that an allusion to a taboo topic
> that's two-levels removed, in a context in which the taboo topic is
> already established and unavoidable, is enough for people to gang up
> against not only the founder and leader of the movement, but also its
> most fundamental value, and to take the opposite side, practicing
> censorship and, by removing the criticism, taking the side of the
> censors that established the denounced censorship law.
My day job is all about monitoring, researching, and engaging in
advocacy against online censorship. As such I take exception to
cheapening the word "censorship" by applying it to the present
argument.
The "gag rule" which the original passage was intended to comment on
is indeed an act of censorship. It was imposed by a sovereign state,
on ordinary citizens and organizations, restricting them from saying
certain things, without exception or recourse, backed up by an
explicit threat of withdrawal of funding, and an implicit threat of
violence (as all state acts are). That's the central meaning of the
word.
It is legitimate to expand the definition to non-state actors who are
also in a position of significant power, capable of imposing similar
bans on entire types of content, groups of people, or subjects of
discussion, without recourse. Facebook, for instance, is in a
position to act as a censor, and arguably does censor with its "real
names" policy which excludes entire groups of people from a public
forum because either they wish to remain anonymous, or their actual
names don't look sufficiently "real" to whoever is making the call
today. Another historical example is the Comics Code Authority, a
cartel of comic-book publishers who, for several decades collectively
refused to print anything that didn't fit a narrow, socially normative
ideal.
But what's happening here and now is not censorship. I committed a
patch which I believed to have consensus of the active maintainers.
The original author of the text removed by the patch objected to the
change, and we are now discussing whether the text should be
reinstated or replaced with something new. Nobody in the conversation
has any particular power over anyone else, and no decisions are being
taken in secret or without recourse. I still won't back the patch out
myself, but if you or anyone else does, I can't stop you.
----
> that the patch was rushed in after less than 48 hours of debate when
> most of us know his email cycles are often longer than that, and that
> the person who installed the patch, in spite of expressing regret for
> not contacting RMS first, does not offer to correct the mistake and
> allow for consensus to be built, insisting on the fait accompli until
> someone else offers to revert the change.
It's fair to ask why I didn't consult RMS. First off, I honestly did
not know that he reads and replies to email in batches with a day or
more of lag. I cannot remember the last time I had any reason to
communicate with him about _anything_, and my current email archive
(which goes back to 2005ish) contains only a handful of messages from
him prior to this conversation, all of which were addressed to mailing
list threads that I wasn't involved with.
The passage that was removed did have an annotation in the Texinfo
source specifically saying that it was written by RMS and was not to
be removed. However, that annotation (and the passage itself) is so
old that the git history does not record when it was added; it has
been untouched since before 1995. I assumed that he would not care
any more, perhaps not even remember, and it did not seem important
enough to bother him about. Again, I regret this incorrect assumption.
Despite that, I don't think I did anything wrong procedurally. RMS
may be the project leader, but he is not a glibc maintainer. His
wishes regarding glibc are perhaps to be given _some_ more weight than
those of any other individual, particularly when he is also the author
of text under dispute, but we have never, to my knowledge, treated
them as mandates.
----
> most of the appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to
> disregard it, to betray the core values, to practice the opposite of
> what we should stand for, so that we can have bland, pasteurized,
> neutral purely technical documentation that won't bring anyone any
> moral discomfort.
Speaking only for myself, it is not moral discomfort that I am
concerned with when I say that the manual should avoid the topics of
abortion and abortion-related censorship. I am concerned with
personal trauma. I know people who have actually had abortions. I
also know people who _didn't_ have abortions despite significant
family pressure to do so. For all of them, the incident is long in
the past, but the nerves are still raw enough that it is not something
casually discussed, certainly not joked about.
But this is just another anecdote, similar to those several other
people have offered. And to be frank, I _don't_ know what they would
think of either RMS's original joke or any of the suggested
replacements. This brings me to an important meta-point. Almost
everyone involved in this thread uses a stereotypically male name. It
seems likely that most, if not all, of us can at best claim to _know_
people who have been directly affected by either the gag rule, or the
restrictions and controversy over access to abortion, birth control,
etc. more generally.
I have been taking a hard line here -- these are not appropriate
topics for the manual _at all_ -- because I don't think any of us is
qualified to write a _good_ joke on this topic, one that would
actually be cathartic for the people most directly affected by either
abortion- or censorship-related trauma, when they happen upon it
unexpectedly in a document that isn't about that. I suppose we could
hire Leslie Jones to write one for us.
zw
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-04 1:09 ` Zack Weinberg
@ 2018-05-06 3:17 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-06 18:00 ` Zack Weinberg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2018-05-06 3:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: aoliva, fw, carlos, libc-alpha
[[[ 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. ]]]
> I assumed that he would not care
> any more, perhaps not even remember, and it did not seem important
> enough to bother him about. Again, I regret this incorrect assumption.
Everyone makes mistakes, and that's not a big deal. But since you
know it was a mistake, please undo it.
--
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-06 3:17 ` Richard Stallman
@ 2018-05-06 18:00 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-05-06 18:04 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Zack Weinberg @ 2018-05-06 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rms; +Cc: Alexandre Oliva, Florian Weimer, Carlos O'Donell, GNU C Library
On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 11:17 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> [[[ 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. ]]]
>
> > I assumed that he would not care
> > any more, perhaps not even remember, and it did not seem important
> > enough to bother him about. Again, I regret this incorrect assumption.
>
> Everyone makes mistakes, and that's not a big deal. But since you
> know it was a mistake, please undo it.
I only said that not consulting you in advance was a mistake.
Removing the joke from the manual was not a mistake, and I will not
undo that change myself, nor will I commit any patch that introduces a
replacement.
zw
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-05-06 18:00 ` Zack Weinberg
@ 2018-05-06 18:04 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2018-05-06 18:14 ` Carlos O'Donell
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Javiera Serrano Polo @ 2018-05-06 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-alpha; +Cc: rms
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-05-06 18:04 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
@ 2018-05-06 18:14 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-05-06 18:29 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2018-05-06 19:20 ` Florian Weimer
2018-05-07 2:03 ` Richard Stallman
2 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2018-05-06 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: javier--CbphpPOVok9WFxGWvC7CbkqlsxDZyT, libc-alpha; +Cc: rms
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-05-06 18:04 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2018-05-06 18:14 ` Carlos O'Donell
@ 2018-05-06 19:20 ` Florian Weimer
2018-05-07 2:03 ` Richard Stallman
2 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Florian Weimer @ 2018-05-06 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javiera Serrano Polo
Cc: libc-alpha, javier--CbphpPOVok9WFxGWvC7CbkqlsxDZyT, rms
* 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-05-06 18:04 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2018-05-06 18:14 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-05-06 19:20 ` Florian Weimer
@ 2018-05-07 2:03 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-07 19:29 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
[not found] ` <1525713151.19750.28.camel@jasp.net>
2 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2018-05-07 2:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: javier--CbphpPOVok9WFxGWvC7CbkqlsxDZyT; +Cc: libc-alpha
[[[ 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-05-07 2:03 ` Richard Stallman
@ 2018-05-07 19:29 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2018-05-07 23:51 ` Alexandre Oliva
[not found] ` <1525713151.19750.28.camel@jasp.net>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Javiera Serrano Polo @ 2018-05-07 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-alpha
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-05-07 19:29 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
@ 2018-05-07 23:51 ` Alexandre Oliva
2018-05-07 23:56 ` Zach van Rijn
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2018-05-07 23:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javiera Serrano Polo; +Cc: libc-alpha, javier--CbphpPOVok9WFxGWvC7CbkqlsxDZyT
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-05-07 23:51 ` Alexandre Oliva
@ 2018-05-07 23:56 ` Zach van Rijn
2018-05-08 3:28 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2018-05-08 4:46 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Zach van Rijn @ 2018-05-07 23:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Oliva; +Cc: libc-alpha
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-05-07 23:51 ` Alexandre Oliva
2018-05-07 23:56 ` Zach van Rijn
@ 2018-05-08 3:28 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2018-05-08 4:46 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Siddhesh Poyarekar @ 2018-05-08 3:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Oliva, Javiera Serrano Polo
Cc: libc-alpha, javier--CbphpPOVok9WFxGWvC7CbkqlsxDZyT
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-05-07 23:51 ` Alexandre Oliva
2018-05-07 23:56 ` Zach van Rijn
2018-05-08 3:28 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
@ 2018-05-08 4:46 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Javiera Serrano Polo @ 2018-05-08 4:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-alpha; +Cc: rms
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1525713151.19750.28.camel@jasp.net>]
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-03 20:58 ` Alexandre Oliva
2018-05-04 1:09 ` Zack Weinberg
@ 2018-05-04 2:56 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2018-05-04 16:32 ` Rich Felker
2018-05-05 4:06 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Alexandre Oliva
1 sibling, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Siddhesh Poyarekar @ 2018-05-04 2:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Oliva, Florian Weimer
Cc: Carlos O'Donell, rms, Zack Weinberg, libc-alpha
On 05/04/2018 01:41 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request
> would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the
> discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic. But no, the
The reason for me is not aesthetic, nor are the topics taboo. Your
extension of the definition of core values of the GNU project is a
feature creep that risks diluting the original message that the GNU
project holds up for the Free software movement, which is software
freedom. It is a message that gets continually eroded as corporations
try and find ways to be compliant by giving away as less of the freedoms
as they can or diluting them as much as they can.
> project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of
> the
> appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, to
> betray the core values, to practice the opposite of what we should
> stand
> for, so that we can have bland, pasteurized, neutral purely technical
> documentation that won't bring anyone any moral discomfort. Way to go
The point is not to make the manual bland and neutral, it is to avoid
giving an excuse to take focus away from the core idea of software
freedom. It is not the opposite of what we stand for, it is a clear
separation so that we don't end up confusing all of the things we stand for.
> to open sores hell: losing the moral backbone, standing for nothing,
> giving up and betraying the essential freedoms. What a shame!
Alex please think about what you're working so hard to defend and
reinstate here.
It is a joke.
That is not even that funny.
That is not even that effective in communicating its purpose clearly.
That is barely read by anyone given its place in the manual.
That not relevant to the manual
That risks diluting our core message of the GNU project
Please think about whether this is worth accusing well meaning friends
of losing their moral compass.
Siddhesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-04 2:56 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Siddhesh Poyarekar
@ 2018-05-04 16:32 ` Rich Felker
2018-05-04 16:40 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2018-05-05 4:06 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Alexandre Oliva
1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Rich Felker @ 2018-05-04 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Siddhesh Poyarekar
Cc: Alexandre Oliva, Florian Weimer, Carlos O'Donell, rms,
Zack Weinberg, libc-alpha
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 08:25:58AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 05/04/2018 01:41 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request
> >would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the
> >discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic. But no, the
>
> The reason for me is not aesthetic, nor are the topics taboo. Your
> extension of the definition of core values of the GNU project is a
> feature creep that risks diluting the original message that the GNU
> project holds up for the Free software movement, which is software
> freedom. It is a message that gets continually eroded as
> corporations try and find ways to be compliant by giving away as
> less of the freedoms as they can or diluting them as much as they
> can.
>
> > project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of
> > the
> > appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, to
> > betray the core values, to practice the opposite of what we should
> > stand
> > for, so that we can have bland, pasteurized, neutral purely technical
> > documentation that won't bring anyone any moral discomfort. Way to go
>
> The point is not to make the manual bland and neutral, it is to
> avoid giving an excuse to take focus away from the core idea of
> software freedom. It is not the opposite of what we stand for, it
> is a clear separation so that we don't end up confusing all of the
> things we stand for.
>
> >to open sores hell: losing the moral backbone, standing for nothing,
> >giving up and betraying the essential freedoms. What a shame!
>
> Alex please think about what you're working so hard to defend and
> reinstate here.
>
> It is a joke.
> That is not even that funny.
> That is not even that effective in communicating its purpose clearly.
> That is barely read by anyone given its place in the manual.
> That not relevant to the manual
> That risks diluting our core message of the GNU project
>
> Please think about whether this is worth accusing well meaning
> friends of losing their moral compass.
This. It's not funny. It's not effective. As someone who supports the
intended message behind it, it's distasteful to me.
Perhaps a useful way forward would be for RMS to contact several
prominent groups doing pro-choice advocacy and specifically advocacy
against gag rules, and ask for relevant expert opinions on whether
this kind of "joke" is beneficial to their work or hostile and
offensive, rather than relying on a bunch of guys with opinions on the
internet...
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke
2018-05-04 2:56 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Siddhesh Poyarekar
2018-05-04 16:32 ` Rich Felker
@ 2018-05-05 4:06 ` Alexandre Oliva
2018-05-05 7:40 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2018-05-05 4:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Siddhesh Poyarekar
Cc: Florian Weimer, Carlos O'Donell, rms, Zack Weinberg, libc-alpha
On May 3, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> Your extension of the definition of core values of the GNU project is
> a feature creep that risks diluting the original message that the GNU
> project holds up for the Free software movement, which is software
> freedom.
I spoke of core values of the Free Software movement, of which GNU is a
very significant part. I did not extend them: the same ethical
imperatives that require software to respect users' four essential
freedoms apply equally to documentation and all other sorts of
information for practical use, and the Free Software movement has very
long stood for them applied to all sorts of information for practical
use, despite the more widely known focus on software.
>> to open sores hell: losing the moral backbone, standing for nothing,
>> giving up and betraying the essential freedoms. What a shame!
> Alex please think about what you're working so hard to defend and
> reinstate here.
> It is a joke.
> That is not even that funny.
> That is not even that effective in communicating its purpose clearly.
> That is barely read by anyone given its place in the manual.
> That not relevant to the manual
> That risks diluting our core message of the GNU project
I agree it's not that funny. I agree it might not be that effective, if
it triggers such fierce emotional reactions on GNU libc developers. I
agree it is probably hardly ever read, considering it only goes in
printed versions of the manual. I don't agree it dilutes our core
message, in that it opposes censorship of information for practical use;
if anything, it reinforces or informs that our goal is not as narrow as
you purport it to be. That, in turn, makes it relevant to the manual.
I don't think it needs to be a great joke for it to be effective in
bypassing learned mind paths. Perhaps that's exactly what makes it so
disturbing?
All of these arguments can be easily turned around: why do people care
so much about removing it, and claiming the joke is about abortion, or
that the issue is about taking a stance about abortion, in spite of the
self-evident fact that it's just taking a stand about censorship? Such
fierce reaction cannot be explained by rational thought alone. It's so
loaded of emotion, of passion, that there is something else going on
behind the scenes, even if individuals that value rationality so highly
won't admit to it, and might not even be aware of it.
I acknowledge that my reaction to what I'm seeing is visceral. I
respond very passionately to what smells and tastes and walks and quacks
like censorship to me.
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?
I do know that a few ill-intentioned individuals are occasionally enough
to induce a flash mob and get otherwise well-meaning people to behave in
very disturbing ways. I don't know that we have that, and I don't want
to assume that we do. The taboo theory suggested by my wife was not
just the one that made the most sense to me, but also that did not
require assuming bad faith on any of the participants, just a
not-entirely-unusual too-strong emotional reaction to a stimulus that is
in some way related with some taboo or an otherwise very emotionally
loaded subject.
The fierce emotional reactions displayed here might suggest that the
presence of the snippet is harmful, if the target audience could be
assumed to react in the same way the developers have. But there is a
non-negligible possibility that developers just fear certain undesirable
reactions from the target audience, and pursue the removal out of that
fear. Some might even advise that certain topics are better left out
from humor, based on such fears.
I ask you all to contrast that, however, with RMS's display of masterful
use of humor to promote Free Software values, while performing Saint
Ignucius and joking about religion, probably the one topic that would be
most strongly advised against in manuals on politically correct humor,
and even humor in general.
> Please think about whether this is worth accusing well meaning friends
> of losing their moral compass.
I hope I didn't get that far; temporary disorientation might be a better
description of the theory that's in my mind, which is supported by the
cognitive dissonance between the fact that nobody claimed to support
censorship (several claimed to oppose it), and the contradictory fact
that this is precisely what's going on with the attempt to mob-impose
the removal of a snippet that the project leader wishes to keep
exclusively in manuals to be printed by the foundation he presides.
If I did get that far, I apologize for not expressing my thoughts and
theories clearly enough, and for the distress my failure to do so may
have caused on any of you.
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Delete abortion joke
@ 2018-04-28 17:07 rain1
2018-04-28 17:58 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-04-29 15:47 ` Florian Weimer
0 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: rain1 @ 2018-04-28 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-alpha
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-04-28 17:07 rain1
@ 2018-04-28 17:58 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-04-29 15:02 ` Ondřej Bílka
` (2 more replies)
2018-04-29 15:47 ` Florian Weimer
1 sibling, 3 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Zack Weinberg @ 2018-04-28 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rain1; +Cc: GNU C Library
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-04-28 17:58 ` Zack Weinberg
@ 2018-04-29 15:02 ` Ondřej Bílka
2018-04-29 15:47 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-04-30 12:41 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-04-30 14:45 ` Zack Weinberg
2 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Ondřej Bílka @ 2018-04-29 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: rain1, GNU C Library
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-04-29 15:02 ` Ondřej Bílka
@ 2018-04-29 15:47 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-04-29 17:11 ` Paul Eggert
0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Zack Weinberg @ 2018-04-29 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ondřej Bílka; +Cc: rain1, GNU C Library
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-04-28 17:58 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-04-29 15:02 ` Ondřej Bílka
@ 2018-04-30 12:41 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-04-30 14:45 ` Zack Weinberg
2 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2018-04-30 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zack Weinberg, rain1; +Cc: GNU C Library
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-04-28 17:58 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-04-29 15:02 ` Ondřej Bílka
2018-04-30 12:41 ` Carlos O'Donell
@ 2018-04-30 14:45 ` Zack Weinberg
2 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Zack Weinberg @ 2018-04-30 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-alpha; +Cc: Carlos O'Donell
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-04-28 17:07 rain1
2018-04-28 17:58 ` Zack Weinberg
@ 2018-04-29 15:47 ` Florian Weimer
2018-04-29 15:49 ` Zack Weinberg
1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Florian Weimer @ 2018-04-29 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rain1; +Cc: libc-alpha
> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-04-29 15:47 ` Florian Weimer
@ 2018-04-29 15:49 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-04-29 16:12 ` Florian Weimer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Zack Weinberg @ 2018-04-29 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Florian Weimer; +Cc: rain1, GNU C Library
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Delete abortion joke
2018-04-29 15:49 ` Zack Weinberg
@ 2018-04-29 16:12 ` Florian Weimer
0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Florian Weimer @ 2018-04-29 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: rain1, GNU C Library
* 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-05-08 10:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-05-08 0:46 delete abortion joke Don Barry
2018-05-08 1:28 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-05-08 4:05 ` Alexandre Oliva
2018-05-08 2:26 ` DJ Delorie
2018-05-08 3:06 ` Russ Allbery
2018-05-08 10:10 ` Torvald Riegel
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-05-03 15:00 [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete " DJ Delorie
2018-05-03 17:05 ` Javier Serrano Polo
2018-05-05 4:02 ` Richard Stallman
[not found] <orin883lcl.fsf@lxoliva.fsfla.org>
2018-05-01 3:03 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Richard Stallman
2018-05-01 13:54 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-05-02 3:11 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-02 6:26 ` Ondřej Bílka
2018-05-02 7:00 ` Javier Serrano Polo
2018-05-02 7:16 ` Rical Jasan
2018-05-03 3:34 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-03 6:08 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Alexandre Oliva
2018-05-05 15:44 ` Federico Leva (Nemo)
2018-05-01 16:12 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Zack Weinberg
2018-05-02 3:11 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-03 4:36 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-05-03 12:28 ` Florian Weimer
2018-05-03 20:58 ` Alexandre Oliva
2018-05-04 1:09 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-05-06 3:17 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-06 18:00 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-05-06 18:04 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2018-05-06 18:14 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-05-06 18:29 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2018-05-06 19:20 ` Florian Weimer
2018-05-07 2:03 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-07 19:29 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2018-05-07 23:51 ` Alexandre Oliva
2018-05-07 23:56 ` Zach van Rijn
2018-05-08 3:28 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2018-05-08 4:46 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
[not found] ` <1525713151.19750.28.camel@jasp.net>
2018-05-08 1:55 ` Richard Stallman
2018-05-04 2:56 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Siddhesh Poyarekar
2018-05-04 16:32 ` Rich Felker
2018-05-04 16:40 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2018-05-05 4:06 ` [rain1@airmail.cc] " Alexandre Oliva
2018-05-05 7:40 ` Javiera Serrano Polo
2018-04-28 17:07 rain1
2018-04-28 17:58 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-04-29 15:02 ` Ondřej Bílka
2018-04-29 15:47 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-04-29 17:11 ` Paul Eggert
2018-04-30 12:41 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-04-30 14:45 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-04-29 15:47 ` Florian Weimer
2018-04-29 15:49 ` Zack Weinberg
2018-04-29 16:12 ` Florian Weimer
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).