bitcrafter

This article is about protests that were (arguably) largely peaceful, and I presume that was intentional on the part of the organizers. I doubt that they would be interested in dropping the mantle of peaceful protest in order to gain license to start blowing up buildings. I could be wrong about that, though. Certainly no one here seems to be interested in peaceful protest.

Who would make an argument that exploding anything is peaceful?

You, by posting a comment disagreeing with my original comment pointing out demolition crosses the line into not being peaceful.

Who’s arguing for peaceful protest here?

Apparently no one here, though I think (possibly incorrectly) that the protestors in the article were intending to be peaceful.

And why is the binary of “peaceful/not peaceful” important to you?

I would ask why it seems to be so important to everyone else, given that there was so much resistance to the idea that blowing up buildings is not "peaceful".

Are you trying to make the point that protests aren’t valid or effective unless they’re “peaceful?”

It depends on what the goal of a given protest is.

For example, this protest had the goal of interfering with a developer conference in order to disrupt the recruitment of new talent, and it would seem that they were very effective in this because there was evidence that the event was shut down. However, in the long run I am not sure how much this will help because I suspect that the event will just be rescheduled, and I suspect that the people attending the event probably felt intimidated as a result of all the people banging on the windows rather than guilty for attending the event. (Just to be clear, I am not saying that therefore this was wasted time on their part; I am just saying that celebrating might be premature.)

Regardless, if nothing else, the protest succeeded very well in being very visible and unignorable, and I think that there is a lot of value in that. Certainly I would rather that they do this kind of thing than that they be casually blowing up buildings as many here would prefer.

Sorry, I am confused by what "Are we sure this isn’t a bit?" is supposed to mean.

Thanks for the link! After reading through the requirements, I see the following, which is probably what led to the package's rejection:

Savannah is a free software hosting site: we host projects such as yours for the sake of the ideals of freedom and community that the free software movement stands for. We offer Savannah hosting to free software packages, as free software packages; therefore, please describe your package clearly as a free software package. Please label it as “free software” rather than as “open source”. [emphasis mine]

So I suppose that it was a clearly stated rule that is indeed violated in the README. Still, a better response than:

Savannah is a software forge for free software. We don't host packages that identify themselves as open source.

Would have been:

Your README identifies the package as "open source" rather than "free software", violating our hosting requirements. Please fix this.

It would only have required slightly more typing, and would have come across as far less hostile.

ENDELAYIFICATION IS STILL BAD!!!