●● IRC: #techbytes @ FreeNode: Thursday, April 22, 2021 ●● ● Apr 22 [01:50] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) [01:50] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) ● Apr 22 [02:18] *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [02:19] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 22 [03:48] *genr8_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection) ● Apr 22 [05:26] *genr8_ (~genr8_@unaffiliated/genbtc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 22 [06:38] schestowitz >>> I am going to give that a go tonight, catching up with the weird attack [06:38] schestowitz >>> on the DB at the moment. [06:38] schestowitz >> [06:38] schestowitz >> The server password for Mumble is 'xxxxx'. [06:38] schestowitz > [06:38] schestowitz > OK, it seems to be working now, but what happened to ytalk? [06:38] schestowitz I have been disabling parts of the site since yesterday, taking note of areas and requests that take up lots of CPU power and are likely targeted. [06:38] schestowitz Regarding ytalk, last update seen at my end was "network maintenance"; I think it was like 3 days ago. [06:38] schestowitz Mumble connects OK, I can test that later when nobody here is asleep. [06:38] schestowitz Regarding TM, it's a bit like cat and mouse... but we'll cope. Maybe we're targeted as (AFAIK) we're the biggest site of this kind. ● Apr 22 [09:19] schestowitz Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courts - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project [09:19] schestowitz > * Andreas R. [2021-04-21 09:39]: [09:19] schestowitz >> In this mail I try to provide an overview of the "GNU Assembly" [09:19] schestowitz >> initiative in relation to the GNU project. [09:19] schestowitz > Do you represent the "anti-GNU Assembly"? [09:19] schestowitz > [09:19] schestowitz > Was the "anti-GNU Assembly" approved by GNU project? [09:19] schestowitz > [09:19] schestowitz > Sorry, I see that as incitement to split the GNU project. This group [09:19] schestowitz > of people wish to say they represent the whole GNU project and they [09:19] schestowitz > present themselves as speakers for GNU project. [09:20] schestowitz > [09:20] schestowitz > It is clear that their activities have not been coordinated with RMS, [09:20] schestowitz > and it is also clear from the list of people that they belong to [09:20] schestowitz > defamatory group of people. [09:20] schestowitz > [09:20] schestowitz > People who are in conflict over their own good deeds, their [09:20] schestowitz > contributions to GNU project, their former respect and admiration to [09:20] schestowitz > RMS, and their later disloyalty and defamation of the founder. [09:20] schestowitz > [09:20] schestowitz > Surely, they (like children) seek to have a group similar like a [09:20] schestowitz > family as "how it was" and they need to gather together. [09:20] schestowitz > [09:20] schestowitz > However, those are personal problems, unrelated to GNU project. [09:20] schestowitz > [09:20] schestowitz > It is not quite just and fair to call it "GNU Assembly" neither "anti-GNU [09:20] schestowitz > Maintainers" as they do not represent the whole GNU project neither [09:20] schestowitz > all numbers of maintainers. [09:20] schestowitz > [09:20] schestowitz > People are free to organize how they wish and want. But we have some [09:20] schestowitz > unspoken social agreements and also legal agreements. [09:20] schestowitz > [09:20] schestowitz > This domain gnu.tools and "Gatherung under New Umbrella" and Code of [09:20] schestowitz > Conduct for GNU are disrespectful attempt to take over the main GNU [09:20] schestowitz > project. [09:20] schestowitz > [09:20] schestowitz > Do you understand how many protests and pointers will be there? People [09:20] schestowitz > will be writing on their pages and websites and will be protesting. [09:20] schestowitz > [09:20] schestowitz > This is causing division, protests, disagreements. [09:20] schestowitz > [09:20] schestowitz > When some of those people is personally disgruntled why they need to [09:20] schestowitz > tear community apart with their personal issues? [09:20] schestowitz > [09:20] schestowitz >> - The main page, https://gnu.tools/, states: [09:20] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-gnu.tools | The GNU Assembly The GNU Assembly [09:20] schestowitz >> [09:20] schestowitz >> "Welcome to the GNU Assembly!" [09:20] schestowitz >> [09:20] schestowitz >> Currently the Assembly consists of GNU maintainers. As such using "GNU" [09:20] schestowitz >> as part of "GNU assembly" is not misleading or inappropriate. They are a [09:20] schestowitz >> subset of GNU, and distinguish themselves from the larger GNU project by the [09:21] schestowitz >> distinct qualifier "Assembly". [09:21] schestowitz >> [09:21] schestowitz >> "We write free software" where "free software" links to [09:21] schestowitz >> https://gnu.tools/en/documents/free-software/ [09:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-gnu.tools | The GNU Assembly Free software [09:21] schestowitz > IMHO, their definition is clearly infringing on FSF copyrights as they [09:21] schestowitz > have taken it from: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [09:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | What is free software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation [09:21] schestowitz > whereby the page is licensed under Copyright 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, [09:21] schestowitz > 2009-2019, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc. -- Creative Commons [09:21] schestowitz > Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License; and where they [09:21] schestowitz > have made a derivative. [09:21] schestowitz > [09:21] schestowitz > They say: "The GNU Assembly produces free software also referred to [09:21] schestowitz > as libre software, liberating software, or open source -- and [09:21] schestowitz > further they say "These criteria were spelled out by Richard [09:21] schestowitz > M. Stallman in the 1980s" -- which is incorrect, as Stallman never [09:21] schestowitz > used "Open Source" -- it is clear misrepresentation of free software [09:21] schestowitz > philosophy. [09:21] schestowitz > [09:21] schestowitz > It is obvious that they do not support GNU project. [09:21] schestowitz > [09:21] schestowitz > It is obvious that they want to use "GNU" as a trademark which does [09:21] schestowitz > not belong to them. [09:21] schestowitz > [09:21] schestowitz > https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:iwpwdz.2.17 [09:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-tmsearch.uspto.gov | TESS -- Error [09:21] schestowitz > [09:21] schestowitz >> As far as I can tell, their definition of "free software", other than their off-by-one [09:21] schestowitz >> numbering is in line with the official definition at [09:21] schestowitz >> [09:21] schestowitz >> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [09:21] schestowitz > The above hyperlink is not on their website. [09:21] schestowitz > [09:21] schestowitz > They did not hyperlink once to GNU project. That is splinter group [09:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | What is free software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation [09:21] schestowitz > that deviates definitions because they are in disagreements. [09:21] schestowitz > [09:21] schestowitz >> Their definition is less complete, but seems to contain no [09:21] schestowitz >> contradictions or misleading information. [09:21] schestowitz > It is not so. [09:21] schestowitz > [09:21] schestowitz > Now they even mention "open source" with a footnote how it does not [09:21] schestowitz > convey meaning of the freedom. [09:22] schestowitz > [09:22] schestowitz > GNU project never mentions "open source" in such context. [09:22] schestowitz > [09:22] schestowitz >> "Heres what GNU means to us:" [09:22] schestowitz >> [09:22] schestowitz >> The bulk of the main page is a set of novelty "backronyms" of GNU to illustrate [09:22] schestowitz >> their purpose, none of which are in direct conflict with the actual GNU [09:22] schestowitz >> project. They, as much as anyone, should be free to fill in what the GNU [09:22] schestowitz >> project means to them and use and contribute to it as they see fit, even [09:22] schestowitz >> as a self-defined exclusive club. [09:22] schestowitz > That is not so. GNU project is on https://www.gnu.org -- and that is [09:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement [09:22] schestowitz > group of people among larger group of people that have contributed to [09:22] schestowitz > GNU project; however, they are not defining the GNU project. [09:22] schestowitz > [09:22] schestowitz > GNU project we have to understand it, is private project of RMS, [09:22] schestowitz > supported and could be protected by the FSF, with the independent [09:22] schestowitz > management of FSF. [09:22] schestowitz > [09:22] schestowitz > GNU project is not on gnu.tools neither on any of other gnu-related [09:22] schestowitz > domains, it is just on www.gnu.org [09:22] schestowitz > [09:22] schestowitz >> The main page includes a link, under "Governance, Not Unilateralism": [09:22] schestowitz >> -https://gnu.tools/en/documents/social-contract/ [09:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-gnu.tools | The GNU Assembly GNU Social Contract 1.0 [09:22] schestowitz > Of course that is a reference to their disagreements to GNU project. [09:22] schestowitz > [09:22] schestowitz > However, nobody forbid them develop free software and contribute to [09:22] schestowitz > each other. [09:22] schestowitz > [09:22] schestowitz > Their misrepresentation and disrespect however cannot have positive [09:22] schestowitz > impact on community. [09:22] schestowitz > [09:22] schestowitz >> "GNU Social Contract 1.0" [09:22] schestowitz >> [09:22] schestowitz >> This is clearly erroneous as there is no such thing as a "GNU Social Contract". [09:22] schestowitz >> [09:22] schestowitz >> This would be trivial to fix by renaming it to "GNU Assembly Social [09:22] schestowitz >> contract", but given its history it's unlikely that those who drafted it [09:22] schestowitz >> would be willing to amend it. [09:22] schestowitz > I don't think it is proper to name it "GNU Assembly" whatever for [09:22] schestowitz > reasons that they misrepresent GNU project. But it is proper to say [09:23] schestowitz > "anti-GNU Assembly", as that would define their purposes better. [09:23] schestowitz > [09:23] schestowitz > As there is no singly hyperlink to official GNU project, it is clear [09:23] schestowitz > that this is shameful splinter group. [09:23] schestowitz > [09:23] schestowitz >> Even though the GNU project has no code of conduct, it should be okay [09:23] schestowitz >> for any self organising subgroup of GNU maintainers to adopt one. [09:23] schestowitz > Yes, people are free to organize. I do not speak of their [09:23] schestowitz > organization, rather of misrepresentation of the official GNU [09:23] schestowitz > project. [09:23] schestowitz > [09:23] schestowitz > They have their projects, nobody forbid them to advertise their [09:23] schestowitz > projects, organize themselves. Their misrepresentation is what is [09:23] schestowitz > problem. [09:23] schestowitz > [09:23] schestowitz >> As far as I can tell, there are no references or indications that [09:23] schestowitz >> this document would apply to anything or anyone outside of the [09:23] schestowitz >> Assembly. [09:23] schestowitz > Their generalization and lack of references to official GNU project [09:23] schestowitz > represents fraudulent misrepresentation of the official GNU project. [09:23] schestowitz > [09:23] schestowitz > Those GNU projects often receive donations. GNU Guix received quite a [09:23] schestowitz > lot of donations. Right? Those are financial interests. Be it of [09:23] schestowitz > social or humanitarian nature, those are financial interests. Groups [09:23] schestowitz > and organizations may have financial interests, regardless, even if [09:23] schestowitz > not considered as individuals. [09:23] schestowitz > [09:23] schestowitz > Donors can claim in their court damages if they feel betrayed by [09:23] schestowitz > fraudulent misrepresentation, as representation was made, it was [09:23] schestowitz > false, this group of people know it is false, their intention is for [09:23] schestowitz > public to rely on them, donors may rely on them, donors may be related [09:23] schestowitz > to their politics of cancel culture, feminism, social justice [09:23] schestowitz > warriors, you name it -- and suffer harm such as harm of the public [09:23] schestowitz > image, or loss of their jobs, contracts or other harm. [09:23] schestowitz > [09:23] schestowitz > Further, the trust in the software developers is divided this way. [09:23] schestowitz > [09:23] schestowitz > GNU project has policy not to involve any other politics but free [09:23] schestowitz > software politics. These people do not have such policy. They are [09:23] schestowitz > group that support cancel culture. [09:24] schestowitz > [09:24] schestowitz >> From their mailing list: [09:24] schestowitz >> [09:24] schestowitz >> There are some mentions of "the former GNU project" and "old GNU" by [09:24] schestowitz >> individual members of the list, but these might be slightly provocative [09:24] schestowitz >> ways distinguish between their initiative and the GNU project as a whole. [09:24] schestowitz >> [09:24] schestowitz >> https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assembly@lists.gnu.tools/thread/3PDVUTCKG33R3KY7XCV5TKQUMIW5NMWC/ [09:24] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-lists.gnu.tools | thoughts for when we get to the details of governance - Assembly - lists.gnu.tools [09:24] schestowitz >> https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assembly@lists.gnu.tools/thread/JUBZSTVY2LLSXDPKOMOSQBN7VYJ6JN5G/ [09:24] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-lists.gnu.tools | New assembly member - Assembly - lists.gnu.tools [09:24] schestowitz > Nobody forbids these people to use their own name of the group, to [09:24] schestowitz > make heir own project, nobody. [09:24] schestowitz > [09:24] schestowitz > What they do however, is they are using recklessly the trademark GNU [09:24] schestowitz > to misrepresent the official GNU project, thus deceiving the public; [09:24] schestowitz > their intention is malicious take over of the organization that they [09:24] schestowitz > do not govern and of course money. [09:24] schestowitz > [09:24] schestowitz >> There are however other claims of direct usurpation of the GNU Project on their [09:24] schestowitz >> mailing list, such as: "by creating this assembly, we affirmed that GNU [09:24] schestowitz >> Project leadership is in our hands, collectively, as maintainers and contributors to GNU." [09:24] schestowitz >> [09:24] schestowitz >> https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assembly@lists.gnu.tools/thread/SMFKD7M34VUTUW45MSO4UOWL4C7V5FQT/ [09:24] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-lists.gnu.tools | The assemblys position - Assembly - lists.gnu.tools [09:24] schestowitz > Ludovic Courts (Guix) is accusing Stallman of Thoughtcrime on his own domain GNU.org: [09:24] schestowitz > https://gnu.support/richard-stallman/Ludovic-Courts-Guix-is-accusing-Stallman-of-Thoughtcrime-on-his-own-domain-GNU-org.html [09:24] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-gnu.support | Ludovic Courts (Guix) is accusing Stallman of Thoughtcrime on his own domain GNU.org [09:24] schestowitz > [09:24] schestowitz > Nothing new from him. [09:24] schestowitz > [09:24] schestowitz > He knows programming, he suffers as social integrator, all what he [09:24] schestowitz > knows is how to divide community. [09:24] schestowitz > [09:24] schestowitz > But I like Guix, however, Ludovic Courts is and never will be GNU, [09:24] schestowitz > neither the GNU project leader, maybe anti-GNU project leader. I am [09:24] schestowitz > sorry for that guy. Some people have high intellect lacking however [09:24] schestowitz > social skills. [09:24] schestowitz > [09:24] schestowitz > By inciting people to public harassment and illegal take-over of [09:24] schestowitz > established projects I consider Ludovic Courts a straight criminal. [09:24] schestowitz > [09:24] schestowitz >> As things are, holding beliefs about what a certain things constitute [09:24] schestowitz >> doesn't conflict with the GNU project. [09:25] schestowitz > If they would be using other name, I don't know how it would conflict. [09:25] schestowitz > [09:25] schestowitz > But GNU Guix would never receive all the donations would they not be [09:25] schestowitz > under the FSF and GNU umbrella. [09:25] schestowitz > [09:25] schestowitz > If they do not use the word GNU, they would lose support. [09:25] schestowitz > [09:25] schestowitz > That is why they want "GNU" in the name, because they are not strong [09:25] schestowitz > enough to sustain their efforts without GNU, or maybe it is just a new [09:25] schestowitz > psychopatic attempt to destroy FSF and GNU. [09:25] schestowitz > [09:25] schestowitz >> To clarify, if someone declares their house to be the newly founded [09:25] schestowitz >> dutchy of X, and themselves royalty, but abides by every law of the [09:25] schestowitz >> land and only adds stipulations that do not contravene existing [09:25] schestowitz >> regulations (e.g. every visitor to the kingdom of X must wear a [09:25] schestowitz >> silly hat), that is certainly odd, but should be no ground for the [09:25] schestowitz >> proper authorities to intervene or curtail their freedom of claiming [09:25] schestowitz >> it is so. [09:25] schestowitz > Not so, we are society that is intertwined in various agreements. For [09:25] schestowitz > example when free software definition is published it is published [09:25] schestowitz > under specific license, they cannot go around changing the text as it [09:25] schestowitz > was not allowed in the first place by the license, thus all of them [09:25] schestowitz > are now infringing on the copyrights of the FSF, and they cannot just [09:25] schestowitz > publish it without contribution, license is clear and should be [09:25] schestowitz > respected. [09:25] schestowitz > [09:25] schestowitz > They cannot misrepresent other organization or project, neither they [09:25] schestowitz > are allowed to use the GNU trademark improperly. [09:25] schestowitz > [09:25] schestowitz >> There is also a proposal for inviting new software projects to the GNU project. [09:25] schestowitz >> [09:25] schestowitz >> https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assembly@lists.gnu.tools/thread/QDYJKAVUKI3LS42AWWBSJXE34ANECRNO/ [09:25] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-lists.gnu.tools | inviting projects to be GNU projects - Assembly - lists.gnu.tools [09:25] schestowitz >> [09:25] schestowitz >> This would be a direct violation of the GNU Project's integrity. [09:25] schestowitz > They are free to invite software projects, why not, but not to call it [09:25] schestowitz > GNU project. [09:25] schestowitz > [09:25] schestowitz > I just see it as a bunch of immature people. [09:25] schestowitz > [09:25] schestowitz >> Much as the EU parliament is able to accommodate and harbour an [09:26] schestowitz >> "anti-EU" faction, there is no real reason, at this moment, for the GNU [09:26] schestowitz >> Project to disavow or even undertake any action against the Assembly or [09:26] schestowitz >> its members. [09:26] schestowitz > If they would call it anti-GNU it would be more clear. [09:26] schestowitz > [09:26] schestowitz > They call themselves GNU because of their own broken integrity, they [09:26] schestowitz > love GNU, but not the father of GNU because they spoke lies against [09:26] schestowitz > the founder and they just want to justify it, as they are good people [09:26] schestowitz > indeed. [09:26] schestowitz > [09:26] schestowitz > However, that they are good inside that does not justify the real harm [09:26] schestowitz > in free software community, as that is their creation since 2019. [09:26] schestowitz > [09:26] schestowitz >> -to monitor if the Assembly will add new software to the GNU Project [09:26] schestowitz >> outside of the normal procedures and channels, and, if needed, [09:26] schestowitz >> inform the writers of the software that they are being misled. [09:26] schestowitz > Everybody is free to invite software projects to any organization, [09:26] schestowitz > like to GNU project, or to defamatory group's project. Nobody object [09:26] schestowitz > on that. [09:26] schestowitz > [09:26] schestowitz > But what is not right is their fraudulent misrepresentation, illegal [09:26] schestowitz > activities, infringment of FSF copyrights on free software philosophy, [09:26] schestowitz > and hostile takeover of FSF/GNU. [09:26] schestowitz > [09:26] schestowitz > We have to clearly say that they they are anti-GNU and that they do [09:26] schestowitz > not represent neither GNU project nor FSF as to protect the FSF's [09:26] schestowitz > status as non-profit corporation. Their political statements don't [09:26] schestowitz > conform to non-profit laws and rules. [09:26] schestowitz > [09:26] schestowitz > There are few facts to mention: [09:26] schestowitz > [09:26] schestowitz > 1. RMS did nothing illegal; GNU project is not theirs; [09:26] schestowitz > [09:26] schestowitz > 2. FSF did nothing illegal and is properly applying the funds for its [09:26] schestowitz > non-profit purposes, they also have public financial statements; [09:26] schestowitz > [09:26] schestowitz > The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courts on https://gnu.tools [09:26] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-gnu.tools | The GNU Assembly The GNU Assembly [09:26] schestowitz > is infringing on the legal rights and purposes of the GNU/FSF. ● Apr 22 [14:00] schestowitz LOL: https://www.linux.org.ru/photos/175670:1038770189.png [14:00] schestowitz [14:00] see http://techrights.org/2021/03/28/ibm-and-rms-incompatible/ [14:00] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | IBM and RMS Are Not Compatible | Techrights ● Apr 22 [16:18] *asusbox has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [16:18] *rianne__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat) [16:20] *asusbox (~rianne@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:8b5:7:8cf4:58d) has joined #techbytes [16:20] *rianne (~rianne@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:8b5:7:8cf4:58d) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 22 [18:44] *Condor (~freenode@e1.nixmagic.com) has joined #techbytes [18:48] *Condor_ has quit (*.net *.split) ● Apr 22 [19:43] schestowitz x https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2021/04/21/unwto-and-facebook-leverage-digital-marketing-to-restart-tourism/ [19:43] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-moderndiplomacy.eu | UNWTO and Facebook: Leverage Digital Marketing to Restart Tourism - Modern Diplomacy