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.
2
1
9
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
Replying to
sure, the projects can move. a few things -
* capital GNU used to be a badge of honor. I bet it still is linked to funding etc. for some projects.
* it will take time for these projects to get off of GNU infra / websites if they make that decision. 1/
2
* GNU is still very much intertwined with FSF, via infrastructure, websites, and people.
* AFAIK, FSF actually foots the bill for the bulk of GNU operations.
* Copyright for GNU projects has generally been assigned to FSF. This used to be seen as a safety measure for projects. 2/
2
Replying to
The owner of the copyright doesn't matter beyond ability to change the license and the people who would need to enforce the license. If they want the software to be under the licenses that it's currently under then the copyright owner doesn't really matter.
1
Replying to
it matters as well for enforcement. which is a big deal for bash et al which are shipped in billions of machines. I'm sure you're familiar with the busybox litigation.
1
Replying to
FSF has never had teeth when it comes to enforcement. They've deliberately weakened the ability to enforce the GPL and focused on simply obtaining compliance after the fact rather than setting an example.
landley.net/toybox/about.h is quickly making the BusyBox stuff irrelevant.
Personally, I've given up on anything but permissive licenses and will primarily support and contribute to projects with permissive licenses.
Bad actors violate the licenses anyway and it gets in the way of using it via license incompatibilities and other painful restrictions.
1
Replying to
IMO it's important for someone to hold the line with copyleft, and strong(er) copyleft. If that's not you and your projects, cool.
1
Show replies
Replying to
I have mixed feelings about enforcement strategy, and the specifics of the situation matter a whole lot here. Small actions have huge outcomes. It's too easy to think everything is a nail that needs to be hammered, or to pit FSF, Conservancy, SFLC, etc. against each other.