The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* Andreas R. <avr@softwarelibre.nl> [2021-04-21 09:39]:
> In this mail I try to provide an overview of the "GNU Assembly"
> initiative in relation to the GNU project.

Do you represent the "anti-GNU Assembly"?

Was the "anti-GNU Assembly" approved by GNU project?

Sorry, I see that as incitement to split the GNU project. This group
of people wish to say they represent the whole GNU project and they
present themselves as speakers for GNU project.

It is clear that their activities have not been coordinated with RMS,
and it is also clear from the list of people that they belong to
defamatory group of people.

People who are in conflict over their own good deeds, their
contributions to GNU project, their former respect and admiration to
RMS, and their later disloyalty and defamation of the founder.

Surely, they (like children) seek to have a group similar like a
family as "how it was" and they need to gather together.

However, those are personal problems, unrelated to GNU project.

It is not quite just and fair to call it "GNU Assembly" neither "anti-GNU
Maintainers" as they do not represent the whole GNU project neither
all numbers of maintainers.

People are free to organize how they wish and want. But we have some
unspoken social agreements and also legal agreements.

This domain gnu.tools and "Gatherung under New Umbrella" and Code of
Conduct for GNU are disrespectful attempt to take over the main GNU
project.

Do you understand how many protests and pointers will be there? People
will be writing on their pages and websites and will be protesting.

This is causing division, protests, disagreements.

When some of those people is personally disgruntled why they need to
tear community apart with their personal issues?

> - The main page, https://gnu.tools/, states: 
> 
> "Welcome to the GNU Assembly!"
> 
> Currently the Assembly consists of GNU maintainers. As such using "GNU"
> as part of "GNU assembly" is not misleading or inappropriate. They are a
> subset of GNU, and distinguish themselves from the larger GNU project by the
> distinct qualifier "Assembly".
> 
> "We write free software" where "free software" links to
> https://gnu.tools/en/documents/free-software/

IMHO, their definition is clearly infringing on FSF copyrights as they
have taken it from: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
whereby the page is licensed under Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007,
2009-2019, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc. -- Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License; and where they
have made a derivative.

They say: "The GNU Assembly produces free software — also referred to
as “libre software”, “liberating software”, or “open source” -- and
further they say "These criteria were spelled out by Richard
M. Stallman in the 1980s" -- which is incorrect, as Stallman never
used "Open Source" -- it is clear misrepresentation of free software
philosophy.

It is obvious that they do not support GNU project.

It is obvious that they want to use "GNU" as a trademark which does
not belong to them.

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:iwpwdz.2.17

> As far as I can tell, their definition of "free software", other than their 
> off-by-one
> numbering is in line with the official definition at
> 
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

The above hyperlink is not on their website.

They did not hyperlink once to GNU project. That is splinter group
that deviates definitions because they are in disagreements.

> Their definition is less complete, but seems to contain no
> contradictions or misleading information.

It is not so.

Now they even mention "open source" with a footnote how it does not
convey meaning of the freedom.

GNU project never mentions "open source" in such context.

> "Here’s what “GNU” means to us:"
> 
> The bulk of the main page is a set of novelty "backronyms" of GNU to 
> illustrate
> their purpose, none of which are in direct conflict with the actual GNU
> project. They, as much as anyone, should be free to fill in what the GNU
> project means to them and use and contribute to it as they see fit, even
> as a self-defined exclusive club.

That is not so. GNU project is on https://www.gnu.org -- and that is
group of people among larger group of people that have contributed to
GNU project; however, they are not defining the GNU project.

GNU project we have to understand it, is private project of RMS,
supported and could be protected by the FSF, with the independent
management of FSF.

GNU project is not on gnu.tools neither on any of other gnu-related
domains, it is just on www.gnu.org

> The main page includes a link, under "Governance, Not Unilateralism":
> -https://gnu.tools/en/documents/social-contract/

Of course that is a reference to their disagreements to GNU project.

However, nobody forbid them develop free software and contribute to
each other.

Their misrepresentation and disrespect however cannot have positive
impact on community.

> "GNU Social Contract 1.0"
> 
> This is clearly erroneous as there is no such thing as a "GNU Social 
> Contract".
> 
> This would be trivial to fix by renaming it to "GNU Assembly Social
> contract", but given its history it's unlikely that those who drafted it 
> would be willing to amend it.

I don't think it is proper to name it "GNU Assembly" whatever for
reasons that they misrepresent GNU project. But it is proper to say
"anti-GNU Assembly", as that would define their purposes better.

As there is no singly hyperlink to official GNU project, it is clear
that this is shameful splinter group.

> Even though the GNU project has no code of conduct, it should be okay
> for any self organising subgroup of GNU maintainers to adopt one.

Yes, people are free to organize. I do not speak of their
organization, rather of misrepresentation of the official GNU
project.

They have their projects, nobody forbid them to advertise their
projects, organize themselves. Their misrepresentation is what is
problem.

> As far as I can tell, there are no references or indications that
> this document would apply to anything or anyone outside of the
> Assembly.

Their generalization and lack of references to official GNU project
represents fraudulent misrepresentation of the official GNU project.

Those GNU projects often receive donations. GNU Guix received quite a
lot of donations. Right? Those are financial interests. Be it of
social or humanitarian nature, those are financial interests. Groups
and organizations may have financial interests, regardless, even if
not considered as individuals.

Donors can claim in their court damages if they feel betrayed by
fraudulent misrepresentation, as representation was made, it was
false, this group of people know it is false, their intention is for
public to rely on them, donors may rely on them, donors may be related
to their politics of cancel culture, feminism, social justice
warriors, you name it -- and suffer harm such as harm of the public
image, or loss of their jobs, contracts or other harm.

Further, the trust in the software developers is divided this way.

GNU project has policy not to involve any other politics but free
software politics. These people do not have such policy. They are
group that support cancel culture.

> From their mailing list:
> 
> There are some mentions of "the former GNU project" and "old GNU" by
> individual members of the list, but these might be slightly provocative
> ways distinguish between their initiative and the GNU project as a whole.
> 
> https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assembly@lists.gnu.tools/thread/3PDVUTCKG33R3KY7XCV5TKQUMIW5NMWC/
> https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assembly@lists.gnu.tools/thread/JUBZSTVY2LLSXDPKOMOSQBN7VYJ6JN5G/

Nobody forbids these people to use their own name of the group, to
make heir own project, nobody.

What they do however, is they are using recklessly the trademark GNU
to misrepresent the official GNU project, thus deceiving the public;
their intention is malicious take over of the organization that they
do not govern and of course money.

> There are however other claims of direct usurpation of the GNU Project on 
> their 
> mailing list, such as: "by creating this assembly, we affirmed that GNU
> Project leadership is in our hands, collectively, as maintainers and 
> contributors to GNU."
> 
> https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assembly@lists.gnu.tools/thread/SMFKD7M34VUTUW45MSO4UOWL4C7V5FQT/

Ludovic Courtès (Guix) is accusing Stallman of Thoughtcrime on his own domain 
GNU.org:
https://gnu.support/richard-stallman/Ludovic-Courtès-Guix-is-accusing-Stallman-of-Thoughtcrime-on-his-own-domain-GNU-org.html

Nothing new from him.

He knows programming, he suffers as social integrator, all what he
knows is how to divide community.

But I like Guix, however, Ludovic Courtès is and never will be GNU,
neither the GNU project leader, maybe anti-GNU project leader. I am
sorry for that guy. Some people have high intellect lacking however
social skills.

By inciting people to public harassment and illegal take-over of
established projects I consider Ludovic Courtès a straight criminal.
 
> As things are, holding beliefs about what a certain things constitute
> doesn't conflict with the GNU project.

If they would be using other name, I don't know how it would conflict.

But GNU Guix would never receive all the donations would they not be
under the FSF and GNU umbrella.

If they do not use the word GNU, they would lose support.

That is why they want "GNU" in the name, because they are not strong
enough to sustain their efforts without GNU, or maybe it is just a new
psychopatic attempt to destroy FSF and GNU.

> To clarify, if someone declares their house to be the newly founded
> dutchy of X, and themselves royalty, but abides by every law of the
> land and only adds stipulations that do not contravene existing
> regulations (e.g. every visitor to the kingdom of X must wear a
> silly hat), that is certainly odd, but should be no ground for the
> proper authorities to intervene or curtail their freedom of claiming
> it is so.

Not so, we are society that is intertwined in various agreements. For
example when free software definition is published it is published
under specific license, they cannot go around changing the text as it
was not allowed in the first place by the license, thus all of them
are now infringing on the copyrights of the FSF, and they cannot just
publish it without contribution, license is clear and should be
respected.

They cannot misrepresent other organization or project, neither they
are allowed to use the GNU trademark improperly.

> There is also a proposal for inviting new software projects to the GNU 
> project.
> 
> https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assembly@lists.gnu.tools/thread/QDYJKAVUKI3LS42AWWBSJXE34ANECRNO/
> 
> This would be a direct violation of the GNU Project's integrity.

They are free to invite software projects, why not, but not to call it
GNU project.

I just see it as a bunch of immature people.

> Much as the EU parliament is able to accommodate and harbour an
> "anti-EU" faction, there is no real reason, at this moment, for the GNU
> Project to disavow or even undertake any action against the Assembly or
> its members.

If they would call it anti-GNU it would be more clear.

They call themselves GNU because of their own broken integrity, they
love GNU, but not the father of GNU because they spoke lies against
the founder and they just want to justify it, as they are good people
indeed.

However, that they are good inside that does not justify the real harm
in free software community, as that is their creation since 2019.

> -to monitor if the Assembly will add new software to the GNU Project
> outside of the normal procedures and channels, and, if needed,
> inform the writers of the software that they are being misled.

Everybody is free to invite software projects to any organization,
like to GNU project, or to defamatory group's project. Nobody object
on that.

But what is not right is their fraudulent misrepresentation, illegal
activities, infringment of FSF copyrights on free software philosophy,
and hostile takeover of FSF/GNU.

We have to clearly say that they they are anti-GNU and that they do
not represent neither GNU project nor FSF as to protect the FSF's
status as non-profit corporation. Their political statements don't
conform to non-profit laws and rules.

There are few facts to mention:

1. RMS did nothing illegal; GNU project is not theirs;

2. FSF did nothing illegal and is properly applying the funds for its
   non-profit purposes, they also have public financial statements;

The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès on https://gnu.tools
is infringing on the legal rights and purposes of the GNU/FSF.



Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/