This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [rain1 at airmail dot cc] Delete abortion joke


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]