Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Dec 2009 00:13 UTC
Gnome In the item we ran yesterday about GNOME and the GNU Project, one aspect got snowed under a little bit. It turns out a claim made in the iTWire article about the role a blog post by Miguel De Icaza was false, and even though the claim wasn't ours, I did repeat it, and therefore, should correct it too. I also need to offer apologies for not framing the opening of the article clear enough - had I framed it better, a lot of pointless discussion and name-calling could've been avoided.
Permalink for comment 399954
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: It is all okay
by boldingd on Wed 16th Dec 2009 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: It is all okay"
boldingd
Member since:
2009-02-19

Last time I checked, FSF was not a "software vendor".


Fair enough: here, let me fix that.

Seriously. It's not like the FSF are any worse than any other stake-holder in the OS/License/Platform wars.


Equally, I could point out that "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is the principal organizational sponsor of the GNU Project," or that gnu.org has a "join the FSF" link on their top-banner. I think I can say, with great confidence, that they are affiliated organizations, by any reasonable definition.

Last time I checked, FSF was not operating "private forum". But it sure was the association with GNU that provoked arguments that the Planet Gnome should be moderated and censored.


Oh, I was unaware that none of the private forums of the FSF or its affiliates -- no web forums, mailing lists, IRC channels or content portals -- where involved. Wait, how are we talking about FSF censorship if we're not talking about an FSF forum? What, where they somehow deleting content from OS News? Like, with their minds? Telepathically?

And, even if it's bastardly, it's not criminal or particularly unreasonable of them to ask an affiliate of theirs, for whom they are the "principal organizational sponsor," to restrict the presentation of views to which they are strongly opposed. They are an advocacy group, after all, and GNU comes down pretty strongly on the FSF's side. In more concrete terms, given that the GNU are strongly affiliated with the FSF, I think it's reasonable for the FSF to ask the GNU not to actively distribute and reproduce media generated by groups (or the affiliates of groups) to whom the FSF (and the GNU) are directly philosophically opposed!

Last time I checked people whose blogs are aggregated by Planet Gnome have right to express whatever opinions they wish.


And you would be incorrect about that -- well, partly. They have the right to post whatever they want on their blogs; they do not have the right to have Planet Gnome reproduce those posts. If Planet Gnome decides, as a matter of policy, not to aggregate blogs that espouse views with which they do not agree -- or fail to meet other standards -- it would not be a case of censorship. Or, specifically, it would be in no way criminal, and would not in any way constitute a violation of the right to free expression. Seriously.

Edit: I can't oppening tag

Edited 2009-12-16 18:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4