Modifying thing IS a key value of Free Software. If you don't want to bother yourself with maintaining software, then let those who do it, decide how to do it.
در October 14, 2019 6:47:55 PM UTC، Alexander Vdolainen <[email protected]> نوشت: >Hi, > >On 10/14/19 9:40 PM, دانیال بهزادی wrote: >> No, it's not. Because you are free to change the source code and make >it >> systemd-independant just like Gentoo or Devuan do. > >It's not free, you still need to modify something, to maintain your own >fork etc ... At some point in future you will also need to rewrite and >redesign a lot of code because of systemd. > >It's lock-in. > >> >> در October 14, 2019 6:32:13 PM UTC، Alexander Vdolainen ><[email protected]> >> نوشت: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 10/14/19 9:16 PM, Paul Smith wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 18:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell >wrote: >> >> >> (skipped) >> >> For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are >proprietary, >> using the common meaning of the term. Also, "lock-in" usually >refers >> to software that prevents users from switching to an >> alternative; GNOME >> and systemd are certainly not lock-in. >> >> >> I'm afraid but I cannot agree with that. Actually with systemd >design >> you have 'lock-in', because in some cases you need to modify a >source >> code to support systemd (or you will face something like this - >> >https://superuser.com/questions/1372963/how-do-i-keep-systemd-from-killing-my-tmux-sessions). >> Also, a lot of system daemons has eaten by systemd (and to make >it works >> some forks were created like eudev). >> Finally, correct me if I wrong, but GNOME 3.8 and newer requires >systemd >> to run, it's a lock-in isn't it ? >> >> >> A non-commercial clause is directly opposed to the four >freedoms (in >> particular freedom 0). In fact a number of >otherwise-could-be-free >> software licenses have been deemed non-free solely for this >type of >> thing. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by >"non-commercial >> clause". >> >> I don't think it's appropriate to state that software that >doesn't >> follow KISS can be considered non-free... how does one even >measure >> that? By whose definition is software not "simple"? Many >people >> would >> suggest that GCC, glibc, Emacs, or other flagship GNU >packages >> are not >> "KISS". Similarly, there's no concrete definition of "*NIX >> principles" >> that one can use. Who will decide? Again many people would >suggest >> Emacs, with its "editor as an OS interface" construction, >doesn't >> follow *NIX principles. I don't see how these criteria can be >> used to >> measure software freedoms, other than by each person >individually >> according to their own tastes. >> >> As with all free software, if someone feels that some >software >> is not >> KISS (enough) or not *NIX (enough), they can avail themselves >of >> their >> four freedoms and modify that software as they like, and >> distribute it >> to anyone else they like. >> >> >> >> >> ارسال از دستگاه اندرویدم با نامه ک-9. لطفاً کوتاهی متن را ببخشید > >-- >Alexander Vdolainen, >Evil contractor.
