Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Paul Smith]

On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 21:32 +0300, Alexander Vdolainen wrote:
> > For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
> > using the common meaning of the term.  Also, "lock-in" usually refers
> > to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
> > and systemd are certainly not lock-in.
> 
> I'm afraid but I cannot agree with that. Actually with systemd design
> you have 'lock-in', because in some cases you need to modify a source
> code to support systemd (or you will face something like this -
> https://superuser.com/questions/1372963/how-do-i-keep-systemd-from-killing-my-tmux-sessions).

It's not lock-in because you don't have to use systemd.  You can take a
system that currently uses systemd and you can remove it and replace it
with something else.  It may be more or less effort, depending, but you
_can_ do it, without violating licenses or losing access to any of your
personal data.

If you consider systemd "lock-in" then you *must* consider something
like GNU libc "lock-in"; it's far more difficult to replace your libc
than it is to switch away from systemd!

> Finally, correct me if I wrong, but GNOME 3.8 and newer requires
> systemd to run, it's a lock-in isn't it ?

No, because you don't need to run GNOME.  You can't consider software
"lock-in" just because it requires some other software, as long as you
don't have to use either one.  And you can't consider some software
non-free just because it requires other free software: a large majority
of free programs out there rely on some other free libraries for
example.

Anyway, as I said this thread should be moved to gnu-misc-discuss.