in theory im very excited about guix, i downloded the binary recently hoping to make it an option (or even a default) for every distro in distro-libre.
im interested in every sort of distro-agnostic solution, to refracta-tools and/or calamares for remastering and installing (refracta-tools is closer to what i want, but theyre both useful in more than one distro family) to guix for package management, icecat (or iceweasel-uxp) for browsing, etc.
the fewer tools designed for a single distro the better. i mean, most are not designed for a single distro-- and its perfectly alright if at some stage the original dev focuses on a single distro, but the ideal (according to what i personally consider ideal) would be for every distro to maintain its modularity to the point where ultimately no tools are distro-specific.
suppose we made a little gui control panel app, just for hyperbola. seems unlikely since it doesnt come with a gui, maybe there is a tui version.
initially, the dev could focus on hyperbola. lets for the sake of argument assume that no original developer has the time or interest in making it fit any other distros-- that means this idea involves at least one initial dev and one that is downstream (or a peer in the same community.)
theres no mandate here for someone to pick that up and start applying it to other distros, but for the moment lets assume someone is interested in making it a little less distro-specific. maybe it finds its way to another distro, either way it is packaged for that. lots of ways to do that. burden neednt ever be assumed to be on the initial dev, who has a distro to maintain.
but its a plus for freedom. nothing wrong with integration in moderation, i simply think too many tightly integrated tools (such as systemd) are bad for this business, and distros are guilty because no one says "lets make this distro the opposite of what systemd is like."
at least not yet, but i still think thats ideal. as for free culture-- the fsf cant misrepresent it im told, because it never claimed to represent it. however, thats not how misrepresentation actually works. i consider free culture to be of similar importance to free software. if theyre entirely different things, its in scope and scale, not nature as the special pleading argument goes.
like paley, i dont consider software to have a monopoly on "utility." i get the argument, at least i think so-- but i dont agree. i have always considered the line between data and program to be partly superficial. so thats an outcome of von neumann architecture, or he considered it because it was already a reasonable generalisation.
sure, there are differences. but with html 2 for example, any keyword could be a tag. and any word could also be the identifier for a function call or method or part of an api. so how do we know any bit of text couldnt potentially be software?
not my only argument along such lines, but the one that points to how narrow the distinction is. sure, there are some easy counterarguments, but the easy ones also miss the point that the line is so narrow.
i think it should be treated as such. if theres a possibility that a program could be non-free for a century due to be mistaken for a work of opinion, shouldnt we err on the side of caution? what is so sacred about an opinion that it needs to be proprietary?
copyright doesnt "protect" works, and besides, most free licenses dont change copyright. so the entire argument seems to be "software is different." cool, and that makes exactly zero argument for keeping works of opinion non-free.
one person thinks there is no need, in the face of countless people who do-- but that one person is respected by a lot of people who are willing to follow him simply based on this non-sequitur of an "argument." its an awful shame, because the need he negates is far better presented than the lack he implies but doesnt argue. it seems very much more like ignoring the point than refuting it.
free culture: "here are a long list of reasons why cultural works should be free."
rms: "pooh-pooh, software is different than works of opinion. now to put this argument on every page on the fsf website and discourage the use of free culture licenses for a suprisingly arbitrary and extremely broad, fairly vague category of work."
me: "im withdrawing my membership. though i will still represent your free software goals as much as i still care about them now. let me know if you change your position."
we know thats not going to happen. it was never necessary for the fsf site to be used this way, and the pointless damage to free culture done by this is evident in roughly every other site associated (even unofficially) with the fsf, including this one: https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id … l_contract
a social contract, as it happens, is precisely the alternative that makes "verbatim copying only" completely unnecessary. that, and the reality of the legal landscape both at present, as well as prior to this absurd maximal copyright regime given to us by jack valenti, as well as any point between the two. but lets throw a huge pointless wrench into free culture just for fun, while saying we support it.
i mean, is it "misrepresenting" free culture yet, or do we also have to spray paint graffiti on portraits of its mother?
probably my largest pet peeve about the entire free software movement. and it could (and possibly should) be completely tangential. as in this shouldnt be something free software does at all. it gains nothing from doing this to free culture. not one thing. it is a pointless hobble, like saying grep should handle the first 32767 lines of a stream.
Avoid arbitrary limits on the length or number of any data structure, including file names, lines, files, and symbols, by allocating all data structures dynamically. In most Unix utilities, “long lines are silently truncated”. This is not acceptable in a GNU utility.
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/stan … #Semantics
Works that express someone's opinion—memoirs, editorials, and so on—serve a fundamentally different purpose than works for practical use like software and documentation. Because of this, we expect them to provide recipients with a different set of permissions: just the permission to copy and distribute the work verbatim. Richard Stallman discusses this frequently in his speeches.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-li … onLicenses
this contains no justification for the limit itself, it is a non-sequitur.
"yellow is used symbolically to encourage caution; therefore, bananas are a good source of potassium."
there is no false premise, there is no false conclusion. works of opinion in some (possibly relevant, possibly irrelevant) ways can be said to be different.
the statement the fsf makes as a result of that premise is also true. whats false is that there is any logic or argument between the premise and conclusion. there isnt one.
so when this is not a requirement for being a fully free distro, why does every free distro pick up the torch and run across the internet saying "use verbatim copying only for this!" this doesnt need to be on every fsf page. it doesnt need to be on every fsf fansite. but for whatever reason, the meme is found everywhere the fsf touches. spread dutifully without cause, requirement, justification or argument. when questioned, everyone just repeats what i quoted here.
open source does this to free softwares arguments: "dont open source anything of core value to your business." isnt that a shame? isnt it a pointless limitation of software freedom? arent the arguments for free software better than the ones against?
or does it matter either way if open source says that, and then later says "we support free software, by golly, we are practically the same thing!"
stop the fsf from misrepresenting free culture-- which it does by reframing it and negating its causes arbitrarily and without real justification.