So RMS resigned from the FSF and his role(s) at MIT, but he's still on with GNU?
That's correct but it's also worth noting that he did not resign, he was resigned.
No Radical Changes in GNU Project
11–20 of 155 posts
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#12So RMS resigned from the FSF and his role(s) at MIT, but he's still on with GNU?
Yes
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#13Hard to read, but we definitely need to make sure the GNU project stays in the right hands.
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
FSF fell for the hit piece.
The "hit piece" was written by Stallman himself.
I believe the parent is saying Stallman was resigned from the role of president of the FSF over the controversy about his private emails (when they were made public).
The MIT CSAIL and the FSF (according to the parent) were both deceived by a "hit piece." It's not 100% clear what the parent is calling a "hit piece," but this might be it: https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec2...
Richard Stallman's email announcing he is resigning his position at MIT CSAIL: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#16_September...
FSF announcement of Richard Stallman resigning: https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-m-stallman-resigns
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#15So RMS resigned from the FSF and his role(s) at MIT, but he's still on with GNU?
According to [1], GNU isn't a legal entity.
[1] http://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and-...
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#16For context, I think it's an answer to this open letter from GNU developers: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#17Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
FSF fell for the hit piece.
The "hit piece" was written by Stallman himself.
I think they're referring to this article, which took his quotes entirely out of context since Stallman never said that the victims were willing (quite the opposite)
https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r...
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#19I don't want to get into the weeds discussing the ins and outs of the various things that have happened with RMS and the FSF. I have my own opinions on whether or not these moves were warranted. Separate from that I guess my largest worry is that this is another step on the road to a complete neutering of the Free Software movement, and the increasing corporate enclosure of the software commons.
The one thing I feel like everyone would have to agree on with RMS is that he was strident in his belief in the Free Software movement and refused to compromise in ways that initially seemed intransigent, and were later revealed to be prescient. I worry that both Gnu and the FSF will move more and more toward being co-opted by the corporate "open source" movement as people less obstinate that RMS take charge and let themselves and the "overton window" of Free Software be dragged further into the realm of captive corporatism.
Of course the counter to this is that retaining RMS as the leader alienates enough people to weaken the movement equally, and that may be true, I don't have a crystal ball. What I do know is that he published The Right to Read in 1997 and a year later we had the DMCA and things have only accelerated from there.
I guess we'll see where the road takes us, but as someone who remembers the excitement and energy that surrounded the web, linux, firefox etc etc, it feels like nowadays open source reigns supreme and it's all just a bunch of free work for corporations to scoop up, stick a web interface on (or containerize), and give back none of the same freedoms they make use of. I just hope we don't look back on this moment (from our locked down walled garden devices) as when the real decline of a true free software commons started.
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#20So RMS resigned from the FSF and his role(s) at MIT, but he's still on with GNU?
That's correct but it's also worth noting that he did not resign, he was resigned.
I'm confused; I'm pretty sure resigning is an act done by the individual, at least supposedly voluntarily, and a quick dictionary check seems to bear that out. Are we just using this as a euphemism, or is there another definition that I needed to learn?