> Mother of all that's holy what are you all doing At FSF? Winning the FSF's Award for the Advancement of Free Software? https://sfconservancy.org/news/2021/ma

> Mother of all that's holy what are you all doing At FSF? Winning the FSF's Award for the Advancement of Free Software? https://sfconservancy.org/news/2021/mar/22/fsf-award-bkuhn/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2021/mar/22/fsf-award-bkuhn/ https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-awards-winners-announced-civicrm-bradley-kuhn-and-alyssa-rosenzweig https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-awards-winners-announ... This happened this weekend, well after that post was written, well after he resigned his FSF roles. The FSF - the same board that chose to reinstate Richard Stallman this weekend - gave him that award, simply because he's that important of a contributor to the free software movement. Any argument that Bradley Kuhn doesn't belong at the FSF or doesn't care about free software is just simply not based in reality. (Listen to his acceptance speech, in the first link, if you're not convinced. He strongly believes that GPL is a line in the sand!) And if you think that a bunch of GNU maintainers have forgotten about the message, I don't know how you can say that RMS is successfully "keeping the philosophy alive and inspiring." The easiest people to convince should be GNU maintainers themselves! If they (allegedly) don't believe in it anymore, is that not the clearest sign that RMS has failed as a leader? If you don't think that the guy who wrote the AGPL and has spent his entire professional career fighting for the GPL is part of the free software movement, if you don't think that the GNU Project is part of the free software movement, if you don't think that Debian is part of the free software movement... who is? > I mean, show me a bad Pull Request. A destructive design decision. A broken thing. Anything. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535789 Richard Stallman deliberately made GCC poorly designed and refused to accept the technically superior approach of LLVM, despite an offer to make LLVM a GNU project and transfer the copyrights to the FSF. This paved the way for corporate interests to take over LLVM, and they've built a compiler that is just about ready to beat GCC at everything, and it's under a weak copyleft. This has been a massive strategic loss for strong copyleft. If it weren't for the cult of personality around him and the idea that he can do no wrong, that alone ought to have caused him to step down from a leadership role. But because it's clear that no technical misstep will ever affect his reputation (GNU maintainers have plenty of others stories like that one), the argument isn't technical. It should have been, but it's too late for that.