Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 3/25/18 7:56 PM, Robert Call wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 19:26 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> > On 3/25/18 5:28 PM, Robert Call wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 11:58 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> > > > On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> > > > > * pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium in
> > > > > solidarity with the other FSDG distros - that issue is o/c a
> > > > > separate
> > > > > can of worms; but i think all distros should be projecting a
> > > > > uniform
> > > > > message, however vague the circumstance, until such
> > > > > controversies
> > > > > are
> > > > > resolved - or *at the very least*, all distros affected by the
> > > > > controversy should be participating in the discussions on this
> > > > > list
> > > > You have our tracker to comment on that and can't expect us to be
> > > > all
> > > > the time everywhere, especially not on list that proved itself as
> > > > a
> > > > bashing field. We do read it, we just don't jump anymore in
> > > > discussions
> > > > here as they tend to go south for various reasons that I don't
> > > > want
> > > > to
> > > > spend time nor energy on it. Simply removing chromium is a
> > > > disservice
> > > > for average user and it shouldn't be a task taken easily. Also,
> > > > while
> > > > it
> > > > would nice for distros to have solidarity with each other, that
> > > > is
> > > > not
> > > > happening and PureOS is often taken into hostage situation most
> > > > likely
> > > > because it is funded by Purism which in my opinion should be
> > > > celebrated
> > > > that one commercial company is willing to put funds into such
> > > > project
> > > > and not the other way around. I have now fully requested removal
> > > > and
> > > > blockade of chromium package but next time please go to our
> > > > bugtracker
> > > > and report a bug there and start discussion (we are actively
> > > > working
> > > > on
> > > > PureOS. Also all current PureOS staff are Debian Developers as
> > > > well,
> > > > we
> > > > also have other duties so you can't take against us that we have
> > > > lack
> > > > of
> > > > time and energy to be everywhere).
> > > >
> > > > https://tracker.pureos.net/T57
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > * then, the other can of worms regarding the debian kernel - if
> > > > > this is
> > > > > what has been preventing connochaetos from being endorsed, then
> > > > > pureos
> > > > > and any future candidates should be held to that same standard
> > > > > without
> > > > > exception - again, at the very least, all distros affected by
> > > > > the
> > > > > controversy should be expected to participate in the discussion
> > > > > on
> > > > > this list
> > > > Debian kernel itself is entirely free but there was issues with
> > > > messages
> > > > that was brought to us and we worked on it both in PureOS and
> > > > Debian
> > > > at
> > > > same time.
> > > >
> > > > https://tracker.pureos.net/T362
> > > >
> > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888405
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > admittedly, i have been kicking pureos a lot lately - mainly
> > > > > because i
> > > > > have been hoping to see someone from pureos defend it - it
> > > > > seems
> > > > > quite
> > > > > clear to me that no one from pureos is reading this list - i
> > > > > would
> > > > > propose that one of the FSDG requirements should be for each
> > > > > distro
> > > > > to
> > > > > elect a delegate to follow, if not actively participate in the
> > > > > discussions on this list on behalf of the distro - and ideally,
> > > > > to
> > > > > stand
> > > > > uniformly with the greater community in the grey areas of the
> > > > > FSDG
> > > > > such
> > > > > as the current chromium issue and the debian kernel
> > > > Kicking PureOS is just doing disfavor to what are you trying - if
> > > > you
> > > > kick me don't expect me to be nice, that is not how things work
> > > > especially in volunteer based projects. You are also doing false
> > > > assumptions and that is again bringing me to first point - this
> > > > list
> > > > is
> > > > toxic for no reason, if you can't work nicely you shouldn't work
> > > > at
> > > > all.
> > > > You have bug tracker for PureOS if you want to work with PureOS
> > > > community and not stretch us on dozen of sides.
> > > Yelling "this list is toxic" does not help you or anyone else. Both
> > > Purism and PureOS did this to themselves with the long list of
> > > problems
> > > from the start. While I don't agree with Bill's stance, I would say
> > > that more time is needed to get over these issues. Being entailed
> > > and
> > > asserting that everyone must forgive you for past issues right now
> > > is
> > > not going to get you very far and you must have the patience.
> > Your behavior is again not acceptable - you're assuming I am yelling
> > and yet proving the toxicity.
> What behavior are you talking about? This is the first time I have
> really made any statements in regards to Purism or PureOS. I kept quiet
> on most issues even when I wanted to speak up. Is it toxic to work
> towards a certain goal and not make compromises on that goal? Taring
> and feathering me is not helping. I would go further and ask what other
> buzz words are you going to throw at or call me?


I can't nor do I want to keep a personal list of people that pointed 
fingers to PureOS without valid reasons (some used even Purism and its 
hardware for trying to bash and block PureOS from getting endorsed). I 
encourage you to keep working, but also and again for PureOS, please use 
our tracker and assign such bugs to me so I get direct notification.


> > While Purism did make claims it could not
> > stand to it in timeframe it wanted, Purism is still moving thing
> > slowly
> > forward and even has constitution to defend such stand. Issues you
> > have
> > with Purism are not part of PureOS and I mentioned Purism only in
> > context that PureOS gets bashed basically because Purism is behind
> > it.
> What more did you expect when a project is started by a parent company
> and pushed for a discrete nvidia GPU for their crowdfunding campaign?
> Had it been a truly independent project, that would not have happened.
> Projects associated with a parent company always carry the baggage of
> the parent company.

I joined Purism after the mistake with nvidia and I agree it was a huge 
mistake but doesn't entitle anyone to attack PureOS even when we are 
trying to do right thing. We moved PureOS website and infra outside 
Purism infra so it doesn't carry its baggage - PureOS is staying Free as 
in Freedom, we just have continue to work on it and we need help as well 
(everyone is invited to become PureOS developer, I have even took out my 
free Sunday to continue writing policies around it).


> > There is no far or patience part - we went through process, been
> > there
> > for 2 years, got accepted as endorsed and are committed to it - that
> > has
> > nothing to do with your or other feelings.
> "Feelings" are not a part of this. It is about building trust. Trust is
> easier to break than it is to build and it takes time. You are not
> going to convince many people that you are committed if you smear them
> or can't understand that it takes time to build trust. No matter what
> one does, it can't be rush or forced.

PureOS has its legacy from Debian main, so it was already good enough 
and we just continued to make it more freedom respecting - it was never 
compromised nor it ignored such requests. Purism is also dedicated to 
Freedom of software and hardware but acknowledges that during that path 
it might accept lost battle to move forward towards ultimate win - 
believe it or not, we are here in same boat.


> > To speak more to topic part - we were pointed to parts for being an
> > endorsed distro and one is being actively maintained to be accepted,
> > and
> > that is a good requirement. Being un-maintained is disservice to
> > users
> > and a security risk as well and such distro should be promoted as
> > new
> > user will get into trouble and maybe end up blaming FSF and other
> > distros. PureOS is actively maintained with public bugtracker so
> > bring
> > your technical issues there.
> >
> > > Many of us are willing to forgive PureOS and Purism for past
> > > issues,
> > > but it is going to take more time for Purism and PureOS to show
> > > they
> > > are dedicated to the Free Software movement. Many of us in the Free
> > > Software community are still concerned about some of the current
> > > actions and behavior of Purism and the lack of community around
> > > PureOS.
> > We are not here to beg or get your forgiveness, that has nothing to
> > do
> > with PureOS and we already showed our dedication to the movement in
> > many
> > ways, but you can ignore it and continue bashing.
> I'm not going to bash it just because. I work on a basis of proof and
> if I see an issue, I'm going to talk about it. I also don't want to
> compromise on freedom.

Neither do I - I joined Debian because the belief of freedom can be 
achieved for everyone, I read and got to know about GNU because of 
Debian, I became Debian Developer to continue spreading such message and 
I assure you, as lead of PureOS, that PureOS is trying to do same but I 
admit it is not fast as we want (there is only 4 of us working on PureOS 
so again, please join, I am looking forward to more and more community 
PureOS developers and eventually the core team to be one with majority 
of community members and I am grateful that Purism is funding such 
project entirely at this point).


> > The issues you see,
> > please raise but I am aware of lack of community which is also issue
> > for
> > us - we want to have active community around it and we are already
> > internally in final process of having community mails with fine-
> > grained
> > access and permissions to PureOS (and wider Purism) infrastructure.
> > This
> > should be publicly announced in April most likely (I wanted this
> > couple
> > of months ago but there are other pressing issues all the time).
> >
> >
> > > If you are wanting to fix these issues, it is going to take time
> > > and I
> > > encourage Purism and the PureOS team to reach out to those who have
> > > been a part of the Free Software community for a while instead of
> > > making guesses and taking a few stabs in the dark. Many of us have
> > > been
> > > doing this for a long time and we have the wounds to show for it.
> > > If in
> > > doubt, reach out.
> > Reach out what exactly? We will reach out for community activity for
> > sure but I don't understand your tone - we already passed the distro
> > review, you can either help us get better (as being an active Free
> > distro is going to be always WIP) or try to fix review process if
> > you
> > feel unhappy about it. Many of us in Purism are also long time
> > community
> > members (decades and decades of experience) and we have also wounds
> > but
> > don't go around and dictate others how and what should they do. If
> > in
> > doubt - use the public bugtracker.
> Purism did not reach out about freedom issues with certain hardware and
> as a result, some hardware sold (and promised) stopped working a result
> of removing firmware. This would not have happened had Purism and
> PureOS consulted people who have been working in these areas and care
> about non-free software and blobs. The same goes with the reason that
> chromium is not a freedom respecting browser.

Not sure to what are you referring here - I know that Todd contacted few 
times FSF, even discussed things with RMS. If you are pointing to BT - 
well yes, that is sad part of Linux hardware enablement in general but 
hardly it can be done something better at this point. Note that due to 
constitution, we are dedicated to liberate such piece of hardware or 
find new one and write firmware/driver for it. It is a process, not an 
static item and anyone with strong WiFi/BT linux kernel driver 
knowledge, please feel free to PM me so we can see what can be done.

For chromium - I am not in favor for it and as stated I request complete 
removal. The thing is - we must find more productive ways of this 
because simply removing things means also we remove productivity for 
many people (yes we have fork of Firefox but that is still not 100% 
stable and some things work on chromium that don't work on Firefox and 
vice versa).


> I want to give Purism and PureOS a chance to redeem themselves, but
> personal attacks and smearing won't help bring people to your side or
> PureOS as a community project. Getting upset when people point out a
> fault won't help build a community. If you don't like my tone, I'm
> sorry if text is not the best medium to talk about these issues in a
> constructive way.

Purism made some choices in past that were not good but that doesn't 
mean it ever had ill intentions, also you can't blame all the people in 
company - we just work and try our best. Look at Purism constitution - 
we made it on purpose so we can be held against it and also even with 
investors, the constitution will stand there strongly. Purism puts 
freedom (and the ultimate goal is freedom) in front of profit and PureOS 
is all about freedom. I am not upset with people pointing on things - I 
am upset with false assumption (that we don't read ML or ignore some 
requests). I am not a person that likes to be in public, I work mostly 
offline to not be distracted but I never ignore any freedom request - I 
can at some point have more pressing issues (life, work) but I never 
ignore.

Indeed, only reading text makes it hard to know how people intend it to 
be (cultural backgrounds, tones in our head) but I will point one more 
time - the easiest and most efficient way to get PureOS attention is to 
use its public bugtracker (and feel free to mail me directly - whenever 
I have time I will jump on IRC/Matrix/WebRTC/Mumble).

Z