Absurd rules of upstream sites [LWN.net]

Absurd rules of upstream sites

Posted Oct 1, 2008 21:39 UTC (Wed) by tseaver (subscriber, #1544)
In reply to: please don't violate rules of upstream sites by JoeBuck
Parent article: Ubuntu debuts its Upstream Report

Such a policy is ridiculous and absurd on its face, because it is contrary to the the fundamental principle of free software, which is that users share information about, and fixes and improvements to the software they use. Must links to CVE entries, for instance, must be blocked as well? How would that help the users running the vulnerable-but-free software about which the CVE had been created?

What about bugs originating in systems where the bug tracker is free software, but which happen to be running on a non-free OS? (How would you know? Why would you care?) To take the point further: should GCC ignore bugs from Mac users, who happen not to run a free OS?

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

(Log in to post comments)

Absurd rules of upstream sites

Posted Oct 1, 2008 22:55 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

GCC has, from the beginning, supported proprietary operating systems, and it's the primary compiler used on the Mac, though Apple seems to be planning a switch to LLVM.

The policy I was talking about only affects links: an FSF site isn't supposed to link to a page that promotes proprietary software.

Absurd rules of upstream sites

Posted Oct 2, 2008 1:42 UTC (Thu) by tseaver (subscriber, #1544) [Link]

> The policy I was talking about only affects links: an FSF site isn't
> supposed to link to a page that promotes proprietary software.

Let's get specific. Here is a Launchpad bug page for Zope (the bug is assigned to me):

https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope2/+bug/143422

In what way does that page "promote proprietary software"? Its entire purpose is to help improve a piece of *free* software (Zope); the only mentions of Launchpad are the home page link (the logo at the top), and a "Help us improve Launchpad" link at the very bottom.

The report contains valuable information, including a patch, about a bug in an application I help maintain. Rejecting a link to this page because LP happens to be closed would be a ludicrously irresponsible policy. Making the report and patch inaccessible to the maintainers of a putative upstream application which applied such a policy would be a disservice both to the maintainers and to the users of the software.

Note that I *do* wish LP were opened up, as I believe its value would be increased. I *don't* think rejecting a link to a bugreport in LP would be sane: it would actively harm the free software ecosystem.

Absurd rules of upstream sites

Posted Oct 2, 2008 17:41 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Launchpad is itself proprietary software. I didn't make the rule, I'm just telling you what the rule is. Directing someone to Launchpad is seen by the FSF as promoting Launchpad.

Canonical has promised to free Launchpad, and when they do, this issue will be moot.