4 ms·

> Then why do you care at all about the FSF in the first place? It sounds like you're here just to spread rumors and opinions in this case. I can't answer for

> Then why do you care at all about the FSF in the first place? It sounds like you're here just to spread rumors and opinions in this case. I can't answer for the OP but it's clear that the FSF was a in a leadership position within the software world in the 1980s and 1990s. That position has slipped precipitously despite the increasing importance of the GNU software they developed in every aspect of modern computing. RMS, both in his behavior while representing the FSF at conferences and his (lack of) understanding of the modern computing environment[1], was/is very clearly part of the reason for that decline. I think the principles the FSF stands for are good and important, however without an organization to promote them they will continue to wither in the modern age and bringing back RMS will not help to reverse that trend. [1] How can a man who spent years refusing to use normal web browsers and insisting on having web pages e-mailed to him possibly be positioned to develop policies to promote the principles of Free Software within the framework of the modern web?

linuxftw 5y ago
> I can't answer for the OP but it's clear that the FSF was a in a leadership position Who cares about 'leadership position' aren't people capable of deciding things for themselves? > FSF stands for are good and important, however without an organization to promote them they will continue to wither in the modern age and bringing back RMS will not help to reverse that trend. So, people can form something similar to the FSF then. Put out a better product, whatever it is the FSF does, and then people will care. Otherwise, your opinions don't matter.
- epakai 5y ago
  GNU project contributions generally require copyright attribution to the FSF. This gives them standing to enforce any GPL violations, but it also makes them rather hard to replace when it comes to GPL enforcement. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
  - linuxftw 5y ago
    Make your own GPL alternative if you don't approve of the FSF and how they conduct themselves. It's like saying Ford is in a leadership position, if you don't like their product, drive something else.
    - MrRadar 5y ago
      Have you never heard of the network effect? It would be extremely difficult to get users of GNU/GPL software to switch to alternatives after they're already made their choice.
      - linuxftw 5y ago
        So, because other people are unwilling to do the work themselves and want to consume the work of the FSF for free, that gives them power of the FSF to demand how they behave because of some nebulous idea of 'leadership?' The FSF doesn't owe you anything, and they're only your leader if you choose to follow them. The companies that have spoken out against Stallman represent 100's of billions of dollars in capital. It's pretty pathetic when you think about it.
        MrRadar 5y ago
        Leadership within a realm begets influence. The entire goal of the FSF as a political organization is to influence the software industry to follow the core principles of Free Software that it espouses. By failing to be in a leadership position, and failing to do things to (re)gain the position, the organization as a whole is failing. The fact that companies representing "100s of billions of dollars in capital" had to put out statements regarding RMS returning to the FSF should tell you just how much of a leadership position the FSF used to have and how much they are damaging it by continuing to associate themselves with RMS.
blub 5y ago
That position has slipped precipitously... because corporations like IBM, Google and Microsoft have taken control of open source. They employ a significant number of contributors and enjoy control over a lot of the major projects.
craigsmansion 5y ago
> and his (lack of) understanding of the modern computing environment How can you look at the "modern web" and claim that? It looks like he understands it perfectly well, even back in the day, but what can he do other than say it's not good for user freedom when faced with user-hostile corporations with literal billions at their disposal? > refusing to use normal web browsers and insisting on having web pages e-mailed to him That's silly. His workflow is obviously email based, which, given that he travels a lot and stays in places with possibly less than stellar connection, is perfectly practical. Get all your work on your device when you have a connection and work through them in batches until the next good connection.

linuxftw 5y ago

> I can't answer for the OP but it's clear that the FSF was a in a leadership position Who cares about 'leadership position' aren't people capable of deciding things for themselves? > FSF stands for are good and important, however without an organization to promote them they will continue to wither in the modern age and bringing back RMS will not help to reverse that trend. So, people can form something similar to the FSF then. Put out a better product, whatever it is the FSF does, and then people will care. Otherwise, your opinions don't matter.

epakai 5y ago
GNU project contributions generally require copyright attribution to the FSF. This gives them standing to enforce any GPL violations, but it also makes them rather hard to replace when it comes to GPL enforcement. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
- linuxftw 5y ago
  Make your own GPL alternative if you don't approve of the FSF and how they conduct themselves. It's like saying Ford is in a leadership position, if you don't like their product, drive something else.
  - MrRadar 5y ago
    Have you never heard of the network effect? It would be extremely difficult to get users of GNU/GPL software to switch to alternatives after they're already made their choice.
    - linuxftw 5y ago
      So, because other people are unwilling to do the work themselves and want to consume the work of the FSF for free, that gives them power of the FSF to demand how they behave because of some nebulous idea of 'leadership?' The FSF doesn't owe you anything, and they're only your leader if you choose to follow them. The companies that have spoken out against Stallman represent 100's of billions of dollars in capital. It's pretty pathetic when you think about it.
      - MrRadar 5y ago
        Leadership within a realm begets influence. The entire goal of the FSF as a political organization is to influence the software industry to follow the core principles of Free Software that it espouses. By failing to be in a leadership position, and failing to do things to (re)gain the position, the organization as a whole is failing. The fact that companies representing "100s of billions of dollars in capital" had to put out statements regarding RMS returning to the FSF should tell you just how much of a leadership position the FSF used to have and how much they are damaging it by continuing to associate themselves with RMS.

blub 5y ago

That position has slipped precipitously... because corporations like IBM, Google and Microsoft have taken control of open source. They employ a significant number of contributors and enjoy control over a lot of the major projects.

craigsmansion 5y ago

> and his (lack of) understanding of the modern computing environment How can you look at the "modern web" and claim that? It looks like he understands it perfectly well, even back in the day, but what can he do other than say it's not good for user freedom when faced with user-hostile corporations with literal billions at their disposal? > refusing to use normal web browsers and insisting on having web pages e-mailed to him That's silly. His workflow is obviously email based, which, given that he travels a lot and stays in places with possibly less than stellar connection, is perfectly practical. Get all your work on your device when you have a connection and work through them in batches until the next good connection.