<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/>
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/11/21 10:23 AM, Carsten Agger
wrote:<br/>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:f904d3ee-cacf-57d8-5fe1-98a08af77c6e@modspil.dk">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/>
<p><br/>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/10/21 2:59 PM, Jacob Hrbek
wrote:<br/>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:5d85b35c-0c52-1437-231c-d90839803855@rixotstudio.cz">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/>
<p>The freedom to <i>improve</i> the program, and release your
improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public,
so that the whole community benefits is being actively
violated by GNOME foundation[2] which is causing free software
projects to die[1] while supporting the spread of this harmful
mentality to the whole open-source field[3].<br/>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As per your own references, this is not what was happening
here.</p>
<p>The Bugzilla link shows that the GNOME developers rejected a
patch - they are free to do so. Your right to release your
improvements does not entail an obligation for upstream projects
to accept them. Your right is to release them downstream,
through your own channels. If the upstream project accepts the
patch so much the better, but that's for them to decide. That's
how free software has always worked.</p>
<p>As for the Stop Theming My App page, the people there don't
demand legal protections or advocate license changes that would
ban theming; they, as far I can see, *kindly request* that
distribution packagers please not break their apps' UX.</p>
<p>You can agree or disagree with such a request, but it is in no
way counter to the spirit of free software.</p>
<p>Best<br/>
Carsten</p>
<p><br/>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:5d85b35c-0c52-1437-231c-d90839803855@rixotstudio.cz">
<p> <br/>
Why is the FSF network not taking any action agains it?<br/>
<br/>
<b>Recommendation:</b> Publicly declare GNOME fndn. non-free
developer so that distros such as debian puts their software
in `non-free` directory and spread the word about these
practices.<br/>
<br/>
1. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/thestinger/termite" moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/thestinger/termite</a><br/>
2. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=679658" moz-do-not-send="true">https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=679658</a><br/>
3. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://stopthemingmy.app/" moz-do-not-send="true">https://stopthemingmy.app/</a><br/>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
- Krey</pre>
<br/>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Discussion@lists.fsfe.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Discussion@lists.fsfe.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion</a>
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct" moz-do-not-send="true">https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>> but it is in no way counter to the spirit of free software.
- Carsten<br/>
<br/>
I disagree, This is agains the spirit of free software as evident
by mentioned free software now being *dead*. Let me justify as I
think that you didn't read the whole freedom:<br/>
<br/>
""Freedom 3: The freedom to <i>improve</i> the program, and
release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to
the public, so that the whole community benefits.""<br/>
<br/>
> To improve the program, and release your improvements (and
modified versions in general) to the public -- Freedom 3<br/>
<br/>
Patch was submitted and is publicly available so this is satisfied<br/>
<br/>
> so that the whole community benefits. -- Freedom 3<br/>
<br/>
This is not as GNOME is seemingly intentionally making their
libraries to work only with their solutions and even trying to
make their library to break 3rd party software (common practice in
non-free software) according to the termite project that put in
effort to hotfix lot of those changes to make the terminal to
work.<br/>
<br/>
Thus the community can't benefit from these changes and i would
also like to mention that four freedoms are defined from GNU
philosophy and by RMS who is often using this "handcuffed" analogy
when comparing free to non-free software:<br/>
<br/>
> Stallman has also stated that considering the practical
advantages of free software is like considering the practical
advantages of not being handcuffed, in that it is not necessary
for an individual to consider practical reasons in order to
realize that being handcuffed is undesirable in itself.
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software#Naming_and_differences_with_Open_Source">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software#Naming_and_differences_with_Open_Source</a>]<br/>
<br/>
Which to me clearly recognizes the presented situation and why we
should do something about it instead of making our own rules to
define those freedoms e.g. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://fsfe.org/freesoftware">https://fsfe.org/freesoftware</a><br/>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
- Krey</pre>
</body></html>