Re: You rate savannah.gnu.org at A? AYFKM?

[Pau Amma]

On 2022-02-24 04:50, Richard Stallman wrote:
>   > > We are the free software movement.
>
>   > False. You are *a part of* the free software movement, but nowhere 
> near
>   > all of it, and whether you're currently a major part of it (or ever
>   > were) is debatable.
>
> I started the free software movement, and I developed the philosophy
> for it.  I also launched development of the GNU system.  We have been
> campaigning for software freedom for a long time.

No, you didn't do either. Free software existed long before the FSF and 
there were philosophical underpinnings to it before you developed your 
own version. Attempting to redefine "free" won't change that; you're not 
Humpty Dumpty, and even if you were, that's not how consensual 
linguistic reality works. Remember SHARE? Remember OS/360, OS/VS1, 
OS/VS2, all in the public domain since the 1960s and 1970s? Remember the 
Michigan Terminal System, which you could get with no strings attached?

> Your hostility,

I'm not hostile, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see you try the 
tone argument on me. (In case you thought that it would work or that I 
or others wouldn't recognize it for what it is, you're incorrect on both 
counts.). I'm tenacious, willing to call out your bullshit, 
misrepresentations, and lies publicly for what they are, and utterly 
unamused at the condescension oozing from your first email to me. (I 
believe that alone would justify hostility, but that's not how I roll.)

> often based on incorrect guesses of what our views
> are,

Wrong again. I'm not guessing, Iem observing what your actions are and 
aren't, and the statements you made that contradict them. The thoughts 
in your own head and others' and internal FSF discussions you may have 
taken part in, unsurprisingly don't enter the picture. What you just 
did, I believe, was a strawman argument.

> doesn't show our views are wrong,

Whether your views are wrong, right, or colorless green ideas flying 
furiously is actually irrelevant to me and unrelated to what I'm saying. 
I'm sticking to your public statements and your observed actions or 
inaction.

> only that you disagree.
> It is not a reason to change them.

Again, irrelevant.

> I would have been willing to discuss with you the reasons why (1)
> accessibility is an issue of features not freedom

It's not, and this, BTW, is a fallacy known as affirming the consequent. 
Accessibility, in web terms, means the ability to make use of a website 
or service. Without that ability, alleged, theoretical freedom is as 
absurdly meaningless as claiming I'm free to get to drinking water on 
the other side of a smooth 5 meter high, 1 meter thick concrete wall 
because others conceivably scale the wall, without an opening in the 
wall I can walk through. https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html 
clearly states "The criteria emphasize [...] not rejecting any users." 
Without accessibility, you *are* rejecting users, which is in direct 
violation of your own criteria. Not owning to that is hypocrisy.

> and (2) why software
> freedom is properly a higher priority than features,

Again, irrelevant, because accessibility isn't a feature, it's part of 
parcel of that freedom your website claims (correctly, as it happens) 
that all users of source code repositories deserve as a matter of 
course.

> if you were
> inclined to have a thoughtful discussion about these questions. But
> you're not inclined to do that,

I am indeed, disinclined to have a "thoughtful discussion" (whatever you 
mean by that) about "questions" that as I explained above and in past 
emails are irrelevant, grounded in your misrepresentations or fallacies, 
or both. But that's a feature, not a bug, as these aren't what we should 
be discussing. Instead, I'm inclined and willing (as I already said) to 
discuss the FSF' statements, its actions or lack thereof, and the 
glaring contradictions between them.

> so I don't see a point in explaining.

And I don't see a point in your repeated attempts to explain away (aka, 
"sweep under the rug") the unjustifiable. Are you willing to get a grip 
and stop doing that?

--
#StandWithUkrainians
English: he/him/his (singular they/them/their/theirs OK)
French: il/le/lui (iel/iel and ielle/ielle OK)
Tagalog: siya/niya/kaniya (please avoid sila/nila/kanila)