4 ms·

So RMS resigned from the FSF and his role(s) at MIT, but he's still on with GNU?

by djsumdog 7y ago

p7IDD243 7y ago
That's correct but it's also worth noting that he did not resign, he was resigned.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  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?
  - nathanlied 7y ago
    You're correct in the definition of 'resigning'. However, there are many cases (and this seems to be one) where people are pushed into resigning against their will. People will still resign, whether out of a sense of honour, or due to the alternative being a prolonged process which will end in the same outcome (being out of a job).
  - ng12 7y ago
    > at least supposedly voluntarily This is the implication. As an example very, very few CEOs are fired but a great many are sternly asked to voluntarily resign by the board.
  - hguant 7y ago
    At higher levels of governance (both corporate and governmental) it's customary to not fire people. The way corporate entities/governments get around this is by asking for some one's resignation, with the implication that if it isn't given, the next step will be to forcibly fire that person. There are a lot of social and legal reasons for this, but it mostly boils down to the negative connotations that come with firing someone; it's a way of avoiding shame/saving face for both parties. The person 'being asked to leave' is spared the indignity of being fired, and the institution doesn't have the albatross of 'one of our key leaders fucked up so badly we had to boot them to the curb' hanging around their necks.
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    Please stop being obtuse. You know very well that people are 'asked to resign' instead of 'fired'.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
      I'm familiar with "asked to resign"; I was asking about the form "they resigned him", which I have not encountered before and which moves it from generally understood euphemism to utterly transparent word replacement.
azinman2 7y ago
Yes
kgwxd 7y ago
According to [1], GNU isn't a legal entity. [1] http://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and-gnu http://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and-...
- belorn 7y ago
  GNU (and I think the GNU Project) is trademarked so there is a legal entity that own the trademark. There is also the domain gnu.org which domain owner is a legal entity. There is the publisher who publish information on the site and distribute the copyrighted works, which depending on the law where the server is located may or may not also be a legal entity. Last we have the Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG) which is maintained by the FSF Licensing and Compliance Lab, which I would assume is owned by FSF.
shadowgovt 7y ago
It depends on what happens over the next few months. IIUC, GNU leadership is somewhat distributed. If people still listen to rms, he has a leadership role. If people cut him out of decisionmaking, he doesn't. I don't think he has veto power over any aspects of the software (and even if he did, forks can be made).

So RMS resigned from the FSF and his role(s) at MIT, but he's still on with GNU?

p7IDD243 7y ago

That's correct but it's also worth noting that he did not resign, he was resigned.

yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
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?
- nathanlied 7y ago
  You're correct in the definition of 'resigning'. However, there are many cases (and this seems to be one) where people are pushed into resigning against their will. People will still resign, whether out of a sense of honour, or due to the alternative being a prolonged process which will end in the same outcome (being out of a job).
- ng12 7y ago
  > at least supposedly voluntarily This is the implication. As an example very, very few CEOs are fired but a great many are sternly asked to voluntarily resign by the board.
- hguant 7y ago
  At higher levels of governance (both corporate and governmental) it's customary to not fire people. The way corporate entities/governments get around this is by asking for some one's resignation, with the implication that if it isn't given, the next step will be to forcibly fire that person. There are a lot of social and legal reasons for this, but it mostly boils down to the negative connotations that come with firing someone; it's a way of avoiding shame/saving face for both parties. The person 'being asked to leave' is spared the indignity of being fired, and the institution doesn't have the albatross of 'one of our key leaders fucked up so badly we had to boot them to the curb' hanging around their necks.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
  Please stop being obtuse. You know very well that people are 'asked to resign' instead of 'fired'.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    I'm familiar with "asked to resign"; I was asking about the form "they resigned him", which I have not encountered before and which moves it from generally understood euphemism to utterly transparent word replacement.

azinman2 7y ago

Yes

kgwxd 7y ago

According to [1], GNU isn't a legal entity. [1] http://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and-gnu http://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and-...

belorn 7y ago
GNU (and I think the GNU Project) is trademarked so there is a legal entity that own the trademark. There is also the domain gnu.org which domain owner is a legal entity. There is the publisher who publish information on the site and distribute the copyrighted works, which depending on the law where the server is located may or may not also be a legal entity. Last we have the Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG) which is maintained by the FSF Licensing and Compliance Lab, which I would assume is owned by FSF.

shadowgovt 7y ago

It depends on what happens over the next few months. IIUC, GNU leadership is somewhat distributed. If people still listen to rms, he has a leadership role. If people cut him out of decisionmaking, he doesn't. I don't think he has veto power over any aspects of the software (and even if he did, forks can be made).