https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00...
Tl;dr: Mercurial is a free software project sharing GNU's goals, while Git is made by anti-GNU people who do not believe in free software and has an incompatible license.
WTF? Git is GPLv2 - the exact same as the Linux kernel. A great many developers are avoiding v3 due to the changes it made. And "anti-GNU people" is just a lame insult.
However, Linus Torvalds (Linux and git) has no problems with non-free at all and in fact wanted to support the production of such systems. Like many users of the GPL2 he never actually shared the goals of GNU.
Git's license was deliberately chosen to support the building of non-free systems. According to GNU ideology that is evil. If you are a GNU contributor you are not supposed to even link to non-free solutions. So yeah, of course the hardcore GNU ideologues do not like git or the people behind it.
(Except in the eyes of zealots, but who cares about them?)
While true, its a bit odd of a statement. The following statements are also equally true:
Having no problem with deforestation does not make you "anti-environmentalist".
Having no problem with Ku Klux Klan members does not make you "anti-tolerance".
Having no problem with murder and theft does not make you "anti-government".
Except... if you are helping others in deforestation, the environmentalism movement will dislike you. If you are helping the Ku Klux Klan, the tolerance movement will dislike you. If you are helping murders, the government will lock you in.
So why do you label FSF as zealots for disliking actions that helps those that want to threaten users with lawsuits and prevent new versions of software for being used, shared or modified?
Without even getting into the broken-ness of your analogies, being anti-DRM and anti-patent-abuse and so on is one thing. Calling someone evil because they don't publish the source of their app is quite another. According to their dogma, if I write a program and don't release the source code, I have perpetrated some horrible thing on the world. Regardless of any other interaction I might have with a user of my app.
Pardon my French, but that's fucking idiotic.
And even if I do release the source, I'm in the wrong if I don't release it under their pet license of choice. (Though not exactly "evil".)
What if my goal is to just see my code in use, not get embroiled in political battles? BSD is a de-facto more permissive license. What if I don't care if some corporation comes along and takes my code and releases a product based on it? Cool! I've helped the world somehow! And people who want to use my code don't have to get involved in GPL politics and drama!
My problem with the FSF is that they assume they are Right, their stance is Right, and anyone who disagrees or dissents is Wrong. Hence dogma. I know religions with more ideological tolerance.
Say you developed a program that keep tracks of group of people. The Ku Klux Klan use it to track down black people, and the anti-tolerance movement use it to track Ku Klux Klan. You helped the world and the anti-tolerance movement should be happy right? If they would prefer that the tool could not be used by the Ku Klux Klan, then they are evil zealots with no ideological tolerance.
Pardon my French too, but that's is fucking idiotic.
> And people who want to use my code don't have to get involved in GPL politics and drama!
That is a very dishonest statement. People can use Debian without becoming involved with politics and drama. I will state fact-less that most people who use GPL have not becoming involved with politics and drama.
> I know religions with more ideological tolerance.
Like BSD proponents I suppose? You own comment stated BSD as the right choice and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Maybe instead of preaching tolerance, you practice tolerance of people that disagree with you. Is it not more tolerant behavior avoid derogatory terms?
Stop it. You're basically engaging in a not-hitler version of Godwin's Law. And it's not even relevant, since the GPL is only about source code, not about whatever that code is used for. In your completely arbitrary and fucked up example, as long as the KKK released the source code to their tracking app, the GPL has nothing to say.
>You own comment stated BSD as the right choice and anyone who disagrees is wrong.
No, I said BSD is a de-facto more permissive license. It objectively has fewer restrictions on a developer than the GPL. Read what I said, not what you want me to have said, please.
> BSD is a de-facto more permissive license. ... And people who want to use my code don't have to get involved in GPL politics and drama!
So yes, you statement was an "BSD as the right choice, GPL is the wrong choice". If you actually want to be tolerant of people right to license what they want, you should not badmouth their choices when they don't pick the same as you.
> as long as the KKK released the source code to their tracking app, the GPL has nothing to say.
I have said nothing about the license. I have said that the anti-tolerance movement would have something to say when that program helps KKK. I also said that it is an understandable reaction from the anti-tolerance movement. They are allowed to be both thankful for the help they got, and scornful about the fact that it is helping KKK.
This is the same complain when FSF dislike when proprietarization is made easier by other peoples license choices. They are thankful for the help, and also scornful about the fact that it makes their goal harder to achieve. If you don't find that relevant because "its a license" or because of godwin, then that is up to you.
The day when people will say "oh I like BSD better" instead of "OMG BSD is much more free you are fucking idiots for liking GPL" will be a good day.
Proprietary software is sometimes called evil by the free software movement. It is after all the very model that the movement was created to destroy. The environmentalist movement will also call deforestation "evil", as well as anyone who dump oil into the oceans.
BSD however are not Proprietary software. Is it possible, that this discussion is not really about BSD, but rather you using it as a front for your own interesting in proprietary software model. In that case, you are being very dishonest.
The whole BSD thing is a misunderstanding by you and a guy upthread. I never stated anything about BSD's superiority, only that it is an objectively more open license. GPL has objectively more restrictions and de facto associates you with a group that many don't want to be seen as part of.
Just saying something like this seems slightly dishonest. It's more permissive for the first receiver of the code, but that therefore means that they are permitted to reduce the persmissions of subsequent receivers of the code.
So 'more permissive' in a sense yes, but not in the sense that the FSF care about - the freedoms that the end user is guaranteed. It's quite possible that the end user is ultimately granted fewer permissions because code was licensed BSD rather than GPL.
If you agree there's a wider meaning of the term, then it's up to context whether someone's making a no true Scotsman argument or rationalizing the behavior of an antagonist.
Just pointing this out, because you might as well be arguing the meta-point about there being a cathedral of the meaning of "Free Software," or a bazaar. Hah.
The GNU/FSF mindset is one of "You're either with us or against us" - but over here in the real world, things are not so black and white.
That isn't in the least true. You should be very careful when trying to decode someones mindset because now you are putting words in someones mouth that never was there in the first place.
> while Git is made by anti-GNU people who do not believe in free software
As stated in above comments I would find it hard to believe Linus would not say that GNU is a valuable asset or software built strictly promoting GNU/FSF principles is bad ... but he's been labeled as anti-GNU for writing software that has a more permissible license. I don't see how this could be an even more "with us or against us" attitude.
You could argue the above statement is an overgeneralization of what the OP said to the whole movement. But there are plenty of thing that prominent individuals, who work on GNU and represent the FSF, have said that would support this attitude.
No. he has been labeled as anti-gnu because of torvalds own statement like:
"So I'm pretty well-known for not exactly being a huge fan
of the FSF and Richard Stallman"
"Linux from the very beginning was not about the FSF ideals."
Take a for-profit company. Their goal is to make money. If I ask them to compromise on this and stop earning money, they get very dogmatic about it and completely refuse.
If I ask a politician to start promoting a competitor, he will also dogmatic refuse. I can not even get him to compromise. I offer him nice bribe money, and he should accept it and step down.
What I am trying to say is that dogma and compromises are not the black and white, good and evil. Dogma is required to make the world work, and compromises are only good when it doesn't interfere too much with it.
gnu fsf "you're either with us or against us"
That includes this interesting post on Slashdot from 2001:
http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/01/12/13/0242205/miguel...
In particular, a comment by ukryule seems especially applicable:
"Taken in the spirit intended. I accept that the GNU principles are quite clearly defined - but is it really the case that "you're either with us or against us"? The original post was asking about Ximian "abandoning it's GNU values" - to which I think pointing out the open-source work it is doing is a perfectly valid response (it shows that the company at least has common ground with GNU). To be fair, I don't know if Ximian (the company) ever supported GNU values ... but if they continue to spend say 80% of their time on GPL'd sw and the other 20% on prorietory sw does this imply they do or don't support GNU values? "
A fair point. Picking licenses that explicitly forbid incorporation of your code in modern GNU projects is a little more than that, though.
'The GNU/FSF mindset is one of "You're either with us or against us"'
I don't think that's quite as true as you think it is.
But:
>Picking licenses that explicitly forbid incorporation of your code in modern GNU projects
By GNU fiat and nothing more. Some of us would rather code than get involved in tiresome political disputes. (See also the BSD class of licenses)
Assuming (with confidence) that you mean RMS, he regards it as evil but my understanding is that his framework for making the assertion is more consequentialist than his detractors believe. With "evil" usually used in more deontological frameworks, I think the confusion is understandable but also understand his not wanting to give up the forcefulness implied by the term (we see time and again that people seem to underweight the risks implied by giving up their rights); I'm not sure if it's a mistake or not.
"By GNU fiat and nothing more. Some of us would rather code than get involved in tiresome political disputes. (See also the BSD class of licenses)"
No, by technicality of the licenses. It is not possible to write a license that 1) adds more restrictions, and 2) is compatible with GPLv2. 1) was deemed necessary because of what were seen as loopholes in GPLv2 - this may be construed as choice but "fiat" implies an arbitrariness that was not present. If instead Git was released under "GPLv2 or later", that code could be used more broadly - which is usually the rallying cry behind those endorsing more permissive licenses. It would still be entirely possible to move code from the work to GPLv2-only licensed projects.
This teacup tempest is entirely of GNU's own making. It's nobody else's fault that their licenses are so onerous that they can't even keep them compatible with later revisions they themselves produce.
Choosing an incompatible license is the fault of the person who chose the license. The FSF made a mistake in not building "... or any later version" into the GPLv2; they acknowledge this. They've been recommending for some time - since long before the start of the Git project - that projects interested in being GPLv2 compatible include "... or any later version."
Imagine it was a piece of software with a bug. There's a patched version, it's been broadly announced that there was a bug and there is a fix. You ignore that and use the buggy version. Whose fault is it when you trip over the bug? Claiming it is "entirely of [the programmer]'s own making" is absurd.
No, I don't know it. The GNU's license absolutism is what got them into this mess in the first place. It's inherent in their aims.
> Imagine it was a piece of software with a bug.
Imagine that it's a piece of software with a new UX direction not everyone agrees with.
Dismantling of copyright and a replacement with a requirement ensuring the freedoms the FSF cares about would thrill them, and not produce this license-incompatibility mess. It is plain, therefore, that it is not at all inherent to their aims. It may be inherent to this particular strategy - but again, license compatibility is something they've been looking at explicitly since making the mistake with GPLv2.
"Imagine that it's a piece of software with a new UX direction not everyone agrees with."
If the criticism was "They did not use GPLv3", that might be a more reasonable analogy than mine. The criticism was they used GPLv2 when they could have used GPLv2+. It's like using the buggy version specifically because others can't use the new UX with it (even though I can still use my old UX with the fixed version). Characterizing that as a move in opposition to those that like the new UX is the only reasonable characterization, absent other overriding factors (back out of metaphor, the only possible reason I could see is a need to use a lot of GPLv2 code in Git - someone else would have to speak to whether that is reality).
Plenty of people share the (publicly stated) goals of the GNU project regarding free software, but disagree with the FSF's approach to realizing those goals, particularly with the GPLv3. (With the GPLv2 I merely thought that the FSF's approach was more restrictive than was necessary, with the GPLv3 and the use-based discrimination in the anti-tivoization clause, I find it actively harmful.)
Not necessarily true... it might simply be that they feel the goals of GNU are better pushed for via means other than GPLv3.
E.g. read a statement by Linux kernel devs regarding the second draft of GPLv3: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/217
Has nothing to do with not supporting the goals of GNU, and more to do with not introducing end use restrictions (which is a significant restraint on software freedom), the risk of balkanizing the FLOSS community (which has actually come true to some extent), etc.
My point was that in the context of Emacs, arguably the GNUest of the GNU, being anti-GNU is nothing to scoff at. Indeed, bzr was chosen for a long time because it was an official GNU project and was usable enough.
The hg devs went through great pains to change the license from GPLv2 to GPLv2-or-later. Lead dev Matt Mackall calls himself a free software advocate (not open source) is good friends with the likes of Bradley Kuhn and Eben Moglen of Software Freedom Conservancy and the Software Freedom Law Center respectively, and makes a point about defending Mercurial's copyleft. Ideology being important for GNU Emacs, it also seemed important to me to argue in favour of Mercurial on these grounds.
That Mercurial also happens to be fast, featureful, innovative, and generally kickass is a nice cherry on top. Its only significant drawback is that it's not as popular as git.
It is an insult? Like "people with common sense" or "individuals of sound mind"?
Luckily, that particular argument is thoroughly rebutted downthread. Choice quote: "Emacs shot itself in this foot already" by choosing Bzr, GNU's blessed VCS, for such political reasons. (Worth noting: RMS raised no strong objections to Git.) Also, the OP is called out for not understanding the driving reasons for moving Emacs to Git.
Edit: Corrected reference to Hg's license; it's GPLv2+, not GPLv3.
I find git's GPLv2-only license to be a disadvantage when
contrasted with hg's GPLv2-or-later. For example,
this makes it more awkward to combine git with AGPL code, which is
something that we reasonably might want to do for web front-ends.
GPLv3 and AGPL have mutual cross-compatibility clauses with each
other, but AIUI, GPLv2-only and AGPL don't.
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso:
[...] main argument in favour of hg is not technical, but
rather social. For GNU, I think it is far more important
to support a project that aligns with GNU's aims [...] GPL2+
+1. And I say that as someone who *likes* hg and wishes
it had won. Repeating the bzr mistake would be stupid, stupid, *stupid*.
The discussion evolved in the meantime, so it's probably better to read the thread yourself: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00...
Not even worth replying to, in my opinion.
I agree with this, so I hesitated to reply... BUT I feel it's important to point out one thing.
You're using the term "Open Source" (capitalized, even), which is a related ideology, but still distinct. It's jarring to read:
> If you don't support the latest views of the GNU committee and Dear Leader then you are against open source
when the FSF discourages use of the term "open source"[0]!
That said, you're right that this is all pretty silly factionalism. People love to focus on less important differences[1], while ignoring the more important larger picture.
Even the FSF doesn't consider "open source" (or the GPLv2) to be bad; they consider themselves both fighting for the same result, just with different motivations. As far as they are concerned, the GPLv2 is fine; the GPLv3 just happens to be a bit better.
[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.htm... (Don't be fooled by the title - the FSF views "Open Source" as an ally, not a rival).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_difference...