Re: removing toxic emailers
> On Apr 14, 2021, at 5:10 PM, Christopher Dimech wrote: > What are we? Adults or Children? You know, as I know, that identities > can be made up. There are many computing specialists who can do that. > They can even be made so it looks as though they were sent by you, or > from your work and home address. They could even be made up to look as > though your children sent them. That’s far out man, like outer space far out. It’s fortunate, though, that despite this confusing world of tricksters you find yourself in, you have maintained the kind of confidence and composure required to put in thisn insincere kind of low-effort trolling to defend your principals, in a serious discussion that were it to go the wrong way, could well potentially also require you to take responsibility for your behavior in public. > So my point here — if it’s okay just to have a point when people should > already be drinking and dancing — my point is let’s not get confused. Do you imagine people may one day solemnly read through these archives here, shaking their heads at how Mr. Stallman was treated, how mean and irrational it all was, even as even you tried your best to outwit the members into doing the right thing… Just as people do when reading Socrates' Apology, or Tacitus talking about the suffering under emperors? That would be sad because the annals of the mailing list will be available verbatim, probably Literally forever, so obviously that can’t happen. Aaron
Re: Fsf decision
This is not new, this was what his FSF put out four or five days ago that that a lot of people found unacceptable. Get a load of this, emphasis mine: > RMS acknowledges that he has made mistakes. He has sincere regrets, > **especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the > reputation**and mission of FSF. While *his personal style remains troubling > for some*, a majority of the board feel his behavior has moderated and > believe that **his thinking strengthens the work** of the FSF in pursuit of > its mission. Aaron
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> Due to their being paid for the work. Have no doubt that if others > were being paid, the contributions could likely drown the current > contributors. Thus, the claim of a power grab is valid. This is a non-sequitur.
Re: removing toxic emailers
> I wasn't even implying that these cultures are 'good' or 'bad', just > that they exist and differ from the various regional cultures which > exist all over the world. I think people were quite touchy at my line > of questioning. I recognise that there are differences between i.e. > LA and Seattle or SF and NY, but those differences pale in comparison > to the differences between Moscow and LA, Beijing and NY, or Sydney > and SF -- and those are all still large international cities. Give me a break Forsku. Could you care to share how you feel imposed upon or feel disenfranchised by this discussion not being sensitive to your culture? How does a code of conduct, or how would discouraging “micro-aggressions” disrespect your lived experiences or make it uncomfortable for you to contribute to GCC? > The fact that over 50% of the SC is based in (probably?) urban North > America should give pause to some humility that it may not represent > the truly global nature of hackerdom. On a technical front this isn't > important, but if you're trying to impose *culture* on a global group, > it might be useful to remember that you have a steering group in which > over 50% of its members represent urban North America, but in the > world, only about 2% of the population live in urban North America. As far as I understand it Chris Punches lives in North America. Only 2% of the world population lives in the US, indeed, most live in China. It’s interesting the unkind reaction Liu Hao received in this very thread when they encountered the arguments making a false equivalency of these proposals to their countries’ history. I’m sure he felt not great, being forced to either defend the CCP or not share their views on the questions of this conversation. What is even the argument you are making at this point? Aaron
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Apr 17, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Frosku wrote: > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural > norms. This is not normal. Just because some of you are paid very nice > salaries to hack on free software doesn't mean all of us are. I don’t make a dime. I find it hard to imagine it would take you all of your time not to act like an asshole. Nobody has even asserted professionalism should be required of professionals. Yet you seem extremely uncomfortable with some bare minimum standards. I assumed as a technical, somewhat obsessive person, you have already Googled “microagressions”, imagined what they would be in the context of a major open source project, and what in-group and out-groups exist in this context, then came to some kind of conclusion that explains your hostility. Aaron
Re: removing toxic emailers
> I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural > norms. Can you not imagine… some people have already felt that way for quite some time, and became excluded? That it is not a hypothetical for them? Aaron
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> Furthermore, it continues to nullify the Apache License by allowing patent > treachery. The LLVM License is thus a perfidious license intended to > allow the licensor to sue you at their choosing.= “Patent treachery”? And the intent of the license is to... accommodate lawsuits? That’s some very motivated reasoning you’re doing right there. Aaron
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> Correct. The Apache License included certain patent termination and > counterclaim provisions, made void and null by the LLVM Exceptions. > Originally, the LLVM License > was based on the two free software licenses - the X11 license and the > 3-clause BSD license. By 2005, Apple managed to hamstring the project by > hiring Chris Lattner > and giving him a team to work on LLVM. Can you tell me about some of the lawsuits that resulted? – Aaron
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
If the purpose was to facilitate lawsuits, and these lawsuits haven’t occurred after all these years, it seems like it didn’t work. Maybe you are wrong about the intent? Aaron > On Apr 18, 2021, at 12:50 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > I know that Apple can make some strong ownership claims. Also Red Hat, > but I consider it minimal. Apple has a very long history of aggressive > legal actions. > >> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:24 PM >> From: "Aaron Gyes" >> To: "Christopher Dimech" >> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate >> >> Can you tell me about some of the lawsuits that resulted? >> >> – >> Aaron >> >>> On Apr 18, 2021, at 12:08 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote: >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 5:46 PM From: "Aaron Gyes" To: "Christopher Dimech" Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > Furthermore, it continues to nullify the Apache License by allowing patent > treachery. The LLVM License is thus a perfidious license intended to > allow the licensor to sue you at their choosing.= “Patent treachery”? And the intent of the license is to... accommodate lawsuits? >>> >>> Correct. The Apache License included certain patent termination and >>> counterclaim provisions, made void and null by the LLVM Exceptions. >>> Originally, the LLVM License >>> was based on the two free software licenses - the X11 license and the >>> 3-clause BSD license. By 2005, Apple managed to hamstring the project by >>> hiring Chris Lattner >>> and giving him a team to work on LLVM. >>> That’s some very motivated reasoning you’re doing right there. Aaron >>
Re: Some really strange GIMPLE
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is > for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information that > is confidential and proprietary to Ampere Computing or its subsidiaries. It > is to be used solely for the purpose of furthering the parties' business > relationship. Any unauthorized review, copying, or distribution of this email > (or any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently > delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto. This confidential message is going to be archived on the Internet publicly, likely forever. I would not send proprietary information to a public mailing list. Aaron
Re: Mission Statement
On Jun 9, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Christopher Dimech via Gcc mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>> wrote > All this could became meaningless in ten years time because major > changes have resulted from division. If we go on dividing the > world using a knife rather than stitching it together, everything > will be left in tatters. The more effort taken in this direction, > the more destructive things will become. Rather, we must touch > deeper dimensions of our intelligence which is naturally > unifying. > > For the sake of study, we initially divided things. With time we > start believing that's how things work. But nature is such that > without inclusiveness, there is no possibility. If people do not > understand what I am talking about, they only have to keep their > mouth shut and hold their nose, and became totally exclusive. > And in a few minutes they will be dead. > > The question is whether we are conscious about what is happening > or not. Otherwise, inclusiveness will only be for survival > purposes. The recent changes in the control of Gcc have all been > about survival. Although, the change in copyright assignment can > prove beneficial to everybody, this assumes that the people in > the Gcc Steering Committee are actually capable of formally > understanding and operating the appropriate legal instruments (or > getting people who do the capability) to move the world closer to > a freedom respecting technological culture. > > It is undeniable that the driving force behind the change was not > communal at all. The aim was to loosen the bonds between the GCC > Projects and the FSF, pushed by the drive to impose the most > extreme form of censure to an individual and declare him "Persona > Non-Grata". > > As for the way forward in the next ten years, software must > became much leaner and effective because of technological > capabilities. There is no other way. Software has not moved > fast as it should be for users. The trend in the world in the > area of technology is that most things are becoming very lean and > mean. One of the greatest injustices I see is that many things > are made in a hurry. I imagine a person who could write this sort of thing in this context might imagine themselves a prescient voice of reason, along the lines of Cicero or something or perhaps imagine the writings one day being read it and readers shaking their heads sadly at how they were treated just as they do when reading about Socrates’ Apology, or Tacitus about suffering under the emperors. Instead, I suspect this will be tossed in a very different, more awkward category. Aaron
Re: Mission Statement
On Jun 9, 2021, at 8:30 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > Besides inspiring a sceptic attitude, Cicero made the language of > the civilized world. Yes > This has nothing to do with any complaints > of mistreatment, but mostly about belief systems that have taken > over many people's lives. That's what is most embarrassing. Huh > > After all, it was yourself who criticised my attitude towards Liu > Hao, who had stated on 4/10/2021 the greatness of chairman mao > and how he eradicated discrimination from chinese society. Once > you take on such zeal, you will get so badly identified with it, > that you yourself will became a social problem. > > The chinese communist party killed thousands of people every year > by firing squads, lethal injection and mobile death vans. Not to > mention the horrifying child-killing policy during china's > draconian one-child system. It has recently also became infamous > for forced uighur sterilisation. How can I ever agree with > someone who thinks the suppression of others is good! Are you asserting I was wrong in my observations that day? Do you think I disagree with anything in the second quoted paragraph? Would it matter? Oh, why do I let myself get sucked in? What even is that kind of argument occurring post “After all,”? I can’t figure out if this is just a non-sequitur, and/or a straw man, or part of a gish gallop? Something just pathological? Perhaps I should go get checked and make sure I didn’t have a stroke since it seems like I must be having trouble processing my environment: it seems like you’ve been behaving this way on the mailing list for months and apparently nobody in charge has asked you to do better or stop and everyone here is pretty smart and professional. Aaron
Re: Mission Statement
> In this state of making something right, and making > something wrong, there is no way for inclusiveness. Are you familiar with the tolerance paradox? Aaron
Re:
Sent from my MacBook Air
