gnu.org/gnu/gnu-struct
> The GNU Project is led by the Chief GNUisance, Richard Stallman, the founder of the project [...] responsible in principle for all significant decisions, including the overall philosophy and standards, and directs the project in carrying them out.
Conversation
GNU has many contributors and makes widely used software.
FSF is an ineffective advocacy organization and contributes to the GPL having no teeth.
The GNU project is a hell of a lot more relevant than the silly bureaucracy.
Not sure why people talk about RMS as if he went away.
1
8
The developers of the software choose to be part of the GNU project. That means choosing to be led by RMS. They're free to develop the projects outside of GNU and stop using the branding. That's what they would do if they truly didn't want to be part of an RMS led organization.
Replying to
It's not proprietary software. It can simply be moved out from under his umbrella. That's the point of Free Software. He's only a dictator via their consent.
Similarly, if you truly don't support RMS, don't provide hosting, mirrors or funding for the projects under his control.
2
3
13
If you do support him, keep doing that. It's easy to see who supports him as an outsider: the people working as part of GNU and the FSF.
Your actions are the best statement about your beliefs, not what you purport to believe on Twitter and from signing / not signing a petition.
1
2
10
If you actually don't want to be led by RMS then make the choice to not be led by RMS.
Otherwise, it just comes across as an attempt to distance yourself from something you choose to support.
It's not like RMS hasn't been RMS for years either. He always had those beliefs.
1
10
Replying to
considering GNUs hostility towards projects that decide to leave (sed, nano, GnuTLS) and its insistence on keeping the name and dev tree (and likely remaining the "authorative" source considering their size/fame) as if nothing happened, it's not that simple
1
2
Replying to
Linux distributions aren't going to use an unmaintained project. They'll follow the developers of the project as they've done in each case like this in the past.
No reason that projects like sed where the FSF can't possibly claim to own a trademark would need to be renamed.
1
Show replies