Talk:Snowdrift

From Free Software Directory
Jump to: navigation, search

Here, right here, is where the FSF has ceased to be a social movement and has become merely a trade association for developers.

I looked into it and, yes, this project which has set out to co opt basic terminology (our history) while pitting Free and Open Source projects against each other throttling funding for some projects based purely on popularity (incentivising a disregard of principles) has been approved by a staffer.

I shall not be renewing my membership.

I do not understand what you are saying. The program that was approved for publication is Snowdrift, a program written in Haskell that allows you to host your own crowdfunding website. The lead developer of the site accepts donations to support the development of this software project. The lead developer also apparently runs his own version of the program. You could also run your own version of the program.
This program is free software that runs on GNU/Linux and it seems useful: those are criteria for primary and essential criteria for adding packages to directory.fsf.org. If you have an issue with the homepage we link to or other information listed on the directory page itself, please provide specific and clear feedback so we can address it on the directory.
We are sad to lose you as a member. However, I do not understand how in any way shape or form the FSF could be characterized as a "trade association for developers", particuarly with regard to the work done on the Free Software Directory. Are there specific things the FSF is doing on the Free Software Directory itself that are the kinds of activities associated with that of trade associations? If so, if you could kindly direct it to our attention we would be most appreciative. Any additional feedback you would be willing to share with us is greatly appreciated, you can email member@fsf.org, or I am happy to arrange a phone call with you directly to take your feedback if that is helpful (if so, please email jgay@fsf.org so we can coordinate a time). --Jgay (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2014 (EST)


That's really not necessary:) Um...to use a metaphor, I'd liken this experience for me akin to ordering a negroni and being served some sort of drink with sweet vermouth used in place of campari. While extremely similar, the difference can be tasted. I want you to know I'm not upset at all, rather, I think I may have just had misinformed expectations of the FSF.
A simple look at the links provided on the FSF software directory wiki page, the actual github page, the projects readme file, etc. etc. leads one to initially question why it is not required to be "re branded" as firefox is to become Abrowser? Yet it did occur to me that this directory is curated by FSF staffers and is curated to the standards of the FSF. The decision was obviously made to include snowdrift the platform in the directory and not request it be stripped of its "branding"/intended usage/marketing and have just the code be included. The FSF has endorsed the platform in it's entirety. Fair enough, but my standards are higher.
My definition of Free software is not limited only to license and whether or not it will run on GNU/Linux. And yes, I do take issue with a platform that re brands Free software as part of "FLO" diminishing its meaning and putting it on equal social footing as open source (well, again, my standard of Free software). I'd like to think you needn't further explanation of that but as SaaS,tivoisation, questionable CLAs,openwashing, etc. etc.become more common I expect it will become glaringly evident that a distinction, by action and not just fundraising words, should have been made now when there was still an opportunity to do so (personally, I'm not willing to risk endorsing potential harm to the software Freedoms of end users in exchange for financial goodies for developers right now). Again, as mentioned before, I think I and the FSF have a differing standard for the definition of Free software. This has become apparent.
Also, y'know, I've been advocating for [my] definition of Free software for a couple years now (what I can, 5 minutes here, 10 minutes there) to help out in an obvious way that I could. I honestly thought that was a shared definition so my apologies for any unintentional misrepresentation (though I have always been sure to state that I am not associated with the FSF whenever it became a question :)). To be honest, doing that was arduous to say the least. I'm not a masochist and in a way I'm somewhat relieved to learn what I thought was cooptive disinformation about the FSF is true and I was wrong as I will no longer be doing that (I'm kinda lazy to begin with ;)). Again, I don't want you to think I'm upset or that this is some sort of "ragequit" :) Going back to my metaphor, I just wanted a proper negroni and all the bar service had stocked was sweet vermouth. I'm not going to hold ill will towards my server or anything but at the same time I will not be back to that establishment the next weekend as they simply don't have what I want. I hope you understand that :)
P.S. As a suggestion, I would strongly urge you to put a disclaimer of sorts on the GNU.org pages as that is where I (and others most likely)formed my standards for Free software.
For reference, Firefox gets rebranded not specifically because the FSF made a rebranding decision. It gets rebranded because Mozilla requires that modified versions get rebranded. Every fork of Firefox requires rebranding according to the Mozilla Public License, no matter who does the fork.
The minor issue here is that you are simply wrong that using the term "Free/Libre/Open" automatically means putting software freedom on equal footing with Open Source. You can simply say that it means that, but that is not how language works. For one thing "Open" is a word that is not itself the term "Open Source". Anyway, you clearly care far more about the name "negroni" than you do about what's in the drink.
Omg, seriously? Seriously?! You seriously just had to get the last kick in while I was down, eh? You just had to needle some more, didn't you? I can't believe how sociopathically petty that is.
Did you not read what I just wrote? It's over, Poof! I'm gone
However, this was my error misinterpreting 30 year old writings as still current and valid. My mistake, it had nothing to do with you. Anyhow, you don't have to keep going after everything I hold dear because if you read my entry you'd know I pretty much don't exist anymore. So before you go about convincing people that opencore is ok as long as the majority of it is what you call free software, know that you don't have to bother. I left pump.io months ago (that you can gloat about, not this though), I just said I wouldn't be redditing anymore, and I said I'm not even going to renew my FSF membership because, as I just said graciously and respectfully of their definition, I admitted it does not coincide with what I define Free software as and that I was mistaken about that. In fact, I promise I will never come to this page, any other Free software related page or conversation ever again. There. You got what you wanted.
You can stop now.
Sorry, I don't like giving up on people. I've only ever wanted to come to a positive understanding. I see that you feel hurt. I never intended to hurt anyone, and I don't have the malicious intentions you're accusing me of.
The only thing I've said all along is that I agree with you about nearly everything. We only partiallydisagree about a minor semantic detail. I think the word "Open" is ok if used alongside unambiguous focus on freedom and ethics (such as how we at Snowdrift.coop talk about Free/Libre/Open projects). You think "Open" is never ok. We've both read the GNU.org article on the topic, and I have said that I only partly agree with the article although I appreciate the concern. Except you refuse to believe that I ever read the article.
We don't disagree about anything else. The only other disagreements are in your imagination. You imagine that I believe all these things you disagree with, but I don't believe any of those things. I don't support "Open Core" anything, and don't advocate for proprietary software ever.
Now that it became apparent that other FSF folks don't outright reject me or Snowdrift.coop, the reasonable conclusion would be that others realize that I'm on your side and am not a bad guy. But, bizarrely, you find it easier to reject the entire FSF than to accept me as an honest ally.
The only person who wanted you to leave the FSF or leave Reddit or otherwise go away was an imaginary voice in your head. I never had any of those wishes. I only hoped you would actually accept me (while continuing to feel free to disagree where we actually disagree) and recognize both on the same side of this fight for software freedom. The only thing I ever asked of you was to stop accusing me of holding views that I don't hold.
*sigh* If you do as you say above, you'll never read this, but for anyone else trying to comprehend a bizarro situation, there it is. I work to be gracious enough that I'll put some blame on the text-based form of communication, but then some people out there may just be crazy, and there's nothing I can do about it. I still don't want to conclude that any given person is necessarily that crazy. I don't like giving up on people. So, I guess I have my own awkward hang-up: my compulsion to keep trying to work with people and come to an understanding. I should learn when to quit. Sorry. Anyway, my sincere best wishes to everyone; there's no ill will here. --Wolftune (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2014 (EST)


I just learned that this was listed here (apparently since May). Anyway, the software that runs the Snowdrift.coop website is indeed Free Software, but the focus is, of course, on the main site itself. Since, at this time, the software isn't actively designed with the goal of people running their own versions, it seems a little odd to be in the directory. On the other hand, anyone certainly can run it themselves under the terms of the GNU AGPLv3+. I'm adding some clarification about those things so nobody is confused.
This entry is *not* for the website itself but for the software, although the website is the public home of the software (other than the Gitorious repository). The poster above seems confused about an issue: inclusion in the directory is not an endorsement of the Snowdrift.coop site. Neither does the directory specify what software the FSF thinks is the best. It merely provides information about the existence of Free Software.
To clarify about the software itself and site's design: basic facts of reality already pit projects against each other given the simple fact of limited resources in the world. Also, the poster above is wrong that the design of the site is purely about popularity. The requirements to be free software and free culture as well as our honor-reporting and other features are all designed to strongly encourage patrons to favor the projects that best serve the public interest and maximize freedoms.
It seems to me that the poster above simply and erroneously takes the inclusion of the word "Open" and some other minor details (such as our compromise in using a third-party site site for our own fund-drive that is itself free software but is not otherwise up to FSF standards) as conclusive proof that Snowdrift.coop directly opposes software freedom. Of course, even if we did not have our dedication to software freedom, the software we're producing would still be free software. Similarly, any free software made by Facebook or Microsoft is still appropriate for inclusion in the Free Software Directory, even though both the FSF and Snowdrift.coop do not endorse the overall aims of those companies. --Wolftune (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2014 (EST)


Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the page “GNU Free Documentation License”.

The copyright and license notices on this page only apply to the text on this page. Any software or copyright-licenses or other similar notices described in this text has its own copyright notice and license, which can usually be found in the distribution or license text itself.