[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
Thu, 29 Apr 2021 20:06:45 +0300
* email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2021-04-29 19:27]:
> Jean Louis <email@example.com> writes:
> > By the way, could you please update the license on this page:
> > https://gnu.tools/en/documents/free-software/
> > The page is mentioning "open source" that was never in the original
> > article for free software here:
> > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and original article is
> > licensed under Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2019, 2021 Free
> > Software Foundation, Inc. This page is licensed under a Creative
> > Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. -- which
> > means, that you are required legally:
> > - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and
> > indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable
> > manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you
> > or your use.
> > There is no URL to the original article, in fact there is no URL or
> > hyperlink to any GNU.org page, no proper attribution, no license,
> > and no indication of modification. You are required to respect
> > copyrights.
> This makes me doubt if Guix really respects FSF FSDG. If they cannot
> respect free software licenses, maybe they include non-free software.
> That is why I proposed in 2019 that approved distros do not audit
> themselves for freedom. A third party should. But Donald Robertson has
> delayed with different excuses over time. John Sullivan also decided to
> overlook this. They just bounced it back on me, instead of taking
> action as FSF should do. I wonder why they have so much decision power
> in FSF and not the board.
I have tried making that point back in 2016. I am not sure if Guix's
automated system respect licenses, I think it does not. Here is
message from 2016 to Ludovic, it was private, I never got an answer on
that. I wonder why.
[Wed Apr 6 2016]
<jmarciano> Hello Ludovic. I wish to tell you in private. [09:32]
<jmarciano> I would rather tell you in private for GPL2 conformance [09:53]
<jmarciano> as when distributing binaries, it is not enough to provide link to
original sources [09:54]
<jmarciano> also when patching original sources, that is modification [09:55]
<jmarciano> I guess that functions shall be made to provide: storage (on
servers) for modified sources, to be downloaded later. Or 3-years
<jmarciano> anyway there must be storage
<jmarciano> for each version that was ever downloaded as substitute, there
shall be storage. [09:56]
<jmarciano> and there shall be link in the package definitions if you ask me,
to such source storage, or there must be written 3 years offer...
<jmarciano> so I guess that there are new functions to be made...
IMHO, those issues are not solved today.
I may be wrong. However, I think I raised that issue on Guix IRC too,
but it was just ignored.
Issue is however open and ignored for 5 years 23 days.
Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project, shulie, 2021/04/28