At GitLab we've been working with some volunteers at the FSF/GNU Project to improve our score on the Ethical Repo Criteria Evaluation [1]. We've got an issue open about LibreJS [2] specifically, as well as another to fix the other issue preventing us from receiving a B grade. We're also working on resolving some of the A grade criteria, albeit not all of them [3].
It's disheartening to see the FSF demonized here, as I've been pleasantly surprised with the discussions I've had with most of their members. In the last HN thread about the Ethical Repo Evaluation, people called their requirements ridiculous. I agree with that for some of the A grade criteria, e.g. the GNU/Linux requirement, but I think people are misunderstanding the purpose of the A grade, which is to signal that a site is "sufficiently free" and can be used to host the GNU Project's source code. This is partly the fault of the FSF having poor communication, of course.
I'd like to highlight a comment by an FSF Volunteer regarding our work on some criteria for the A grade, "Thanks for taking the time on this; I'm very encouraged, and I'm happy with any progress made. Again: since these criteria are for hosting of GNU projects, they're a bit more strict and won't be met by most services."
GitLab CE is licensed under the MIT Expat License, not the GPL, and yet they're perfectly happy to work with us regardless. Outwardly they advocate for extreme ideas, but they're also willing to compromise.
Apologies if this is rambly at all, or comes off as "shilling" in any way, I just wanted to share my story of interacting with the FSF. Hopefully I can convince some people that they're not all living in caves yelling about how they'll never use non-GPL software.
I'd like to note that GitLab not only is doing an awesome job with the FSF, but they are also themselves embracing free software tools for their internal work.
They're switching from Slack to Mattermost[0], from Google Analytics to Piwik[1], looking for a free software commenting software to replace Disqus[2].
Just to be fair, internally we're currently using Slack. We'll be switching to Rocket Chat next week (right before we all fly to Austin to meet everyone face-to-face, so God help us there if stuff breaks). I'm relatively new, so I don't know what happened with Mattermost. I also haven't been following what we're intending to ship with in future versions, it could be both or just one, but don't quote me on that.
I don't think there's any OSS solution that can rival Disqus right now. Discourse comes closest in terms of features but it actually redirects the users to the forum when it is embedded, instead of allowing commenting inline on the blog/site. Bad UX :(
> This is partly the fault of the FSF having poor communication, of course.
You've highlighted here one of the biggest reasons why the FSF is demonized. The organization has made and continues to make significant contributions to computing. It also sounds like many people who volunteer there also realize the need to compromise in order to move forward.
However, the FSF itself, as a few pointed out belief, is an organization focused on it ideology. While making good software is important for it to advance its agenda, the simple fact is how you say something is just as, if not more than, important as what you are saying. The message comes off just as bad as many fundamentalist religious organizations. That's going to drive away a lot of people, many of whom would agree if the message was marketed better.
That better marketing is supposed to be the open source movement. It is debatable whether that has achieved the desired effect or not. It really depends on what the desired effect is.
Also, the FSF does not really "compromise". If you ask them, "hey can you accept just a liiiiitle bit of non-free software", they'll say "no". A compromise can be disastrous to the FSF, in their view, akin to accepting a liiiiitle slavery.
I think that their aversion to compromise -- effective in practice or not -- is an antidote to Silicon Valley's inherent is-ought fallacy when social laws are concerned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11600803
It's disheartening to see the FSF demonized here, as I've been pleasantly surprised with the discussions I've had with most of their members. In the last HN thread about the Ethical Repo Evaluation, people called their requirements ridiculous. I agree with that for some of the A grade criteria, e.g. the GNU/Linux requirement, but I think people are misunderstanding the purpose of the A grade, which is to signal that a site is "sufficiently free" and can be used to host the GNU Project's source code. This is partly the fault of the FSF having poor communication, of course.
I'd like to highlight a comment by an FSF Volunteer regarding our work on some criteria for the A grade, "Thanks for taking the time on this; I'm very encouraged, and I'm happy with any progress made. Again: since these criteria are for hosting of GNU projects, they're a bit more strict and won't be met by most services."
GitLab CE is licensed under the MIT Expat License, not the GPL, and yet they're perfectly happy to work with us regardless. Outwardly they advocate for extreme ideas, but they're also willing to compromise.
Apologies if this is rambly at all, or comes off as "shilling" in any way, I just wanted to share my story of interacting with the FSF. Hopefully I can convince some people that they're not all living in caves yelling about how they'll never use non-GPL software.
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html
[2]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/15621
[3]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/15678
reply