3 ms·
I don't think I would go as far as calling it a dictatorship, the article mentions it in the context that there has been no new leadership emerged, no developme
by danybittel 6y ago
I don't think I would go as far as calling it a dictatorship, the article mentions it in the context that there has been no new leadership emerged, no development in the movement, so the same people lead it. That does make sense.
The article also mentions that FSF tries too hard to make Linux "their thing". So I'm not sure how one excludes the other.
The article goes into length why "free software" is a bad term. Which is a bit pedantic, but..
Wait, did you actually read the article?
- boomboomsubban 6y agoYes, I listed their first, second, and third "signs free software is intellectually bankrupt." There wasn't a fourth, instead going on to say users don't care about freedom. While leadership of the FSF may not have changed, they're hardly the only relevant organization. Branches of GNU have seen new leadership, and there are many other organizations. Stallman won't try to hijack any project you create As for the other two, they are decades old debates with both sides explained to death and can largely be ignored by everyone. I will use terms I prefer, you can do the same, we both understand. You might get some copypasta complaints, but you don't need to listen.