Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nano is no longer a GNU project

nano-editor.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 240 posts

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#161

Post by claystu »

HalcyonicStorm wrote: post #128
blakesterz wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to admit it, but that's more or less why I do as well. It's not that I don't get ViM, it's just that I don't like it. I have TRIED to force myself to use it. Something about that long reach for the Esc key? I don't know what it is really, but I just never felt comfortable using it. Emacs is such a huge monster of a program. 90% of what it does I never touch. Most of the time I just need to edit a conf file and…

I add "imap jj `^" to my .vimrc That way, I don't leave the home row when trying to switch modes

This is what I do as well. I think it's pretty standard.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#162

Post by kazinator »

mikegerwitz wrote: post #43

I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…

The copyright assignment requirements in GNU projects point to the GPL not being good enough, thereby undermining it.

They are obviously rooted in the fear that in fact the FSF cannot use code that is merely GPL-ed, if someone else owns the copyright.

"Use the GPL for your code to grant everyone rights and freedoms. Just not when giving to us; we would prefer your right, not your left, thank you very much."

There is a legitimate concern that someone apparently placing code under the GPL might not have the right to do so. But for that, an affidavit should be good enough, not an affidavit plus assignment of copyright to the FSF.

The paranoid copyright assignment obviously guards against the possibility that a rightfully proclaimed GPL can be retroactively revoked. Someone in the project changes their mind and says that these pieces which are wrote are no longer GPLed; not going forward, nor in any past revisions. (That author him or herself, not some previous employer or other third party, from whom permission had not been properly obtained to have that work under the GPL.)

If the FSF believes this to be a real threat, any group of users anywhere relying on the GPL should take the same view.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#163

Post by Z-r »

ArneBab wrote: post #123
mikegerwitz wrote: post #43

I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…

Do I understand it right that Benno is doing a lot of work, but he does not want to continue the project in a manner which is consistent with the vision Chris as the principal maintainer of the project holds?

Chris does not have any vision of the project anymore. He does not have enough time even to publish releases [0]. And it was actually he who suggested Benno to fork GNU nano.

[0] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.editors.nano.devel/4598/focus=...

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#164

Post by infodroid »

chris_7 wrote: post #152
infodroid wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it really necessary to also publish their email addresses? -- Edit: I know the addresses appear in the Git repo. But they are not accessible to web crawlers over HTTP. Most code hosting services require a login to see them as a spam control measure. Which is also why I think they should be obfuscated at least.

For whom is spam actually a problem? Filters are absurdly good.

It can be additional work for people self-hosting their mail. But I base that on my own experience many years out of date.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#165

Post by tzs »

hundchenkatze wrote: post #154
infodroid wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it really necessary to also publish their email addresses? -- Edit: I know the addresses appear in the Git repo. But they are not accessible to web crawlers over HTTP. Most code hosting services require a login to see them as a spam control measure. Which is also why I think they should be obfuscated at least.

They are accessible over HTTP. http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/nano.git/commit/?id=115aeda...

They are more accessible here on HN, though, because crawlers that obey robots.txt will not see it on git.savannah.gnu.org but will see it here on HN.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#166

Post by sbuttgereit »

abetusk wrote: post #158
dangrossman wrote: post #24

> > As you know, I will not assign my copyright to the FSF, > > nor to anyone else. All the code I write is GPL'ed. > > You don't need to own the copyright on any code in > > order to be able to enforce the GPL. [...] > Indeed, and in fact for a long time the copyright > was owned by me before it was assigned to the FSF. > It's not required per se, but generally speaking, > there must be a Maintainer of the Software…

I'm confused. The reason the FSF gives for copyright assignment is precisely in aid of their legal enforcement of the GPL. From their website [1]: ... enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. ... [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html

That's a reason, but I suspect not the prime reason. The ACLU, the Institute for Justice, Pacific Legal Foundation, etc. usually never have a direct claim themselves in the cases they're involved in... they look for some other party that has standing and then assists that party in pursuing their case in court. I don't see why the FSF could not also follow that model by supporting any copyright holder in litigating/negotiating GPL license breaches.

What they do get with assignment is that they can ensure that the software is only ever issued under the license/license version of their choosing. Any other copyright holder can cease distributing their software under the GPL; true, they cannot revoke previously granted rights, but future versions, etc. can be made to be non-FOSS. An independent copyright holder could also dual license their code GPL and closed source. I think avoiding those scenarios is really why FSF wants the assignment. Not the ability to litigate, that's just an excuse.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#167

Post by noobermin »

chris_7 wrote: post #152
infodroid wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it really necessary to also publish their email addresses? -- Edit: I know the addresses appear in the Git repo. But they are not accessible to web crawlers over HTTP. Most code hosting services require a login to see them as a spam control measure. Which is also why I think they should be obfuscated at least.

For whom is spam actually a problem? Filters are absurdly good.

Depends on the email service. Colleagues of mine who work at military research lab have their emails filtered to junk in my email but then I routinely receive email notices in my inbox from university emails warning me my "Account is expired/full/overdue" and I must take immediate action by clicking on a link.

Hint: I think gmail filters are good. The rest? Not so much.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#168

Post by cyphar »

kazinator wrote: post #162
mikegerwitz wrote: post #43

I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…

The copyright assignment requirements in GNU projects point to the GPL not being good enough, thereby undermining it. They are obviously rooted in the fear that in fact the FSF cannot use code that is merely GPL-ed, if someone else owns the copyright. "Use the GPL for your code to grant everyone rights and freedoms. Just not when giving to us; we would prefer your right, not your left, thank you very much." There is…

GNU copyright assignment is to make enforcement actions possible[1]. In the US, copyright law doesn't really give a community much power to enforce their copyright claims. The GPL is not weak because of this, it's just how the FSF operates. The SFConservancy doesn't have this requirement for projects they support, but it's clear that the FSF lawyers believe that having copyright assignment makes enforcement much more powerful.

As for "taking away people's freedom", the copyright assignment explicitly states that your contributions will always be under a copyleft license. So you're not losing any protection of the GPL if you contribute to GNU. That's just an insane proposition.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#169

Post by cyphar »

cm3 wrote: post #47
mikegerwitz wrote: post #43

I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…

But if a or the driving force of a project takes things elsewhere, the users will eventually follow. If the disagreement was over GNU's insistence to require assigning copyright to the FSF, then I can fully understand the reluctance. It's the same reason many contributors cannot officially submit patches to side projects of Google employees, Ubuntu projects, etc.

FSF copyright assignment is done such that they state they will always distribute your code under a copyleft license. So it's not an issue like with Canonical (which asks for the right to make copyleft code proprietary). Copyright assignment is important if you register your copyright to make strong enforcement possible. US copyright law doesn't deal with communities of contributors very well, in terms of those copyright holders exercising their rights.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#170

Post by snowwrestler »

ArneBab wrote: post #114
snowwrestler wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assigning copyright to the FSF is very much unlike assigning copyright to a for-profit company. The terms that you sign and agree to with the FSF are very reasonable and they protect the developer from having the license changed should the FSF be taken over by people that would want to abuse your contributions. This does not comport with my understanding of how copyright works. Once you transfer your copyright to s…

They set conditions (we will keep it free) just like any software contract where you only get the software if you promise to adhere to some rules. I don’t think the FSF ever violated the condition, so there’s nothing you can do to test whether a court would follow that interpretation.

Software contracts with conditions are license agreements. You get to use Windows, Ubuntu Linux, Photoshop, Facebook, etc. as long as you adhere to the terms of the license.

You don't get the copyright. That's still held by the software company. That's how they can force you to adhere to their conditions--they own the software and they can take away your license.

But if they gave you the copyright, they couldn't take it away anymore, so you would have no reason to follow their conditions any more.

Post reply on HN