Who controls glibc? [LWN.net]

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 7, 2018 19:37 UTC (Mon) by Sesse (subscriber, #53779)
Parent article: Who controls glibc?

Wow, the argument is “I am often present at RMS' speeches, and the audience laughs at his jokes, so thus, he decides what is funny”?

It would seem GNU needs glibc more than glibc needs GNU, so perhaps the current glibc maintainership should just find another home for it.

to post comments

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 8, 2018 4:44 UTC (Tue) by liam (guest, #84133) [Link] (2 responses)

At this point, I think the LF may be a better home for this key library.

Who controls glibc?

Posted Jun 9, 2018 0:18 UTC (Sat) by JanC_ (subscriber, #34940) [Link] (1 responses)

No, that's not a neutral location for a cross-platform project.

(And there are other issues with the Linux Foundation too, of course.)

Who controls glibc?

Posted Nov 8, 2018 16:42 UTC (Thu) by deepfire (guest, #26138) [Link]

Jan, this is intriguing, can you at least hint at what those might be?

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 8, 2018 7:23 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] (4 responses)

Please, do not forget that we are talking about the *manual*. A manual has to be correct, sure, but it is no code. It shares aspects with other written means of expression, like journalism. The most important is perharps that there's no single "correct" way of writing a manual, but a wide sprectrum of personal styles.

With that in mind, I personally would be very upset if someone decided that an estilistic element on my writtings (as is a joke) should be mutilated. This is close to censorship, and very wrong in my oppinion.

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 8, 2018 8:27 UTC (Tue) by Sesse (subscriber, #53779) [Link] (3 responses)

How about if someone who doesn't actually contribute anything positive to the project anymore comes up from high above and demands that a (rather controversial!) joke has to stay, because they were important to the project 20 years ago?

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 8, 2018 12:25 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] (2 responses)

Sorry, but it does not sound convincing. Why would any of the factors you mention matter in a non-technical (basically artistical and political) decission? Do you claim that RMS cannot make political decissions for the GNU project (of which GLib is part)? Or that it is not his right for him to seek integrity of the prose he wrote, no matter how long ago?

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 8, 2018 12:51 UTC (Tue) by Sesse (subscriber, #53779) [Link] (1 responses)

Both. RMS should not make political decisions for glibc anymore, and it is not right for him to seek “integrity of the prose he wrote” (where said “prose” is a bad joke completely disconnected from the rest of the manual).

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 10, 2018 9:04 UTC (Thu) by zenaan (guest, #3778) [Link]

> Both. RMS should not make political decisions for glibc anymore, and it is not right for him to seek “integrity of the prose he wrote” (where said “prose” is a bad joke completely disconnected from the rest of the manual).

Yes, many seek to remove any concept of morals (or even ethics), to remove any hint of the founder's original intentions, to remove all politically incorrect prose and the ever-expanding menagerie of trigger words and phrases from all "upstanding and upright" technical material such as documentation.

Let us all submit to the passive aggressive, cry bully trigger-melting "unique snowflakes" by making the entire public world a safe space.

Or, let's not‼

Let's honour the intentions, ethics, vision and grace of the founders on whose shoulders we stand (such as Richard Stallman).

Let's admit that we are above submission to an endless march of passive aggressive cry bullies demanding the entire world become their safe space.

Let's admit that everything we say and do is in some way, on some level political, and at the very least honour the intentions of the founders of those projects we benefit so handsomely from.

Do. Not. Subsidize. Bad. Behaviour.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-28/are-social-just...

And do not subsidize the passive aggressive safe-space demanding cry bullies.

Create your world,

Who controls glibc?

Posted Jul 27, 2018 19:43 UTC (Fri) by krijgdenergstenkanker (guest, #125984) [Link]

> It would seem GNU needs glibc more than glibc needs GNU, so perhaps the current glibc maintainership should just find another home for it.

Well that's the issue isn't it? Rights are irrelevant here and in most places and it's an issue of might. Does glibc depend on the FSF for funding that Stallman can order them to drop? Is "glibc" a trademark that the FSF owns? Are there contractual obligations in play that stops the FSF from cutting such funding to coerce them? Even if they stop funding will glibc be able to just secure funding under the auspices of something else? — those are the questions that actually matter here.

Rights exist on paper that Linus wipes his butt with — in the end of the day who controls glibc is decided by who has the might to force it to do its bidding.