Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes: > The hypothetical case you wish to present would be dividing GNU > project and FSF, which also does not make sense.
I agree. > Please note that RMS is founder of the FSF, and hypothetically, with > help of few members, could also re-submit the Articles of Association > of the FSF and could make quite a new FSF structure. I suggested that that happen, to close this loophole. > making, in my personal opinion and based on the Massachusets laws > where FSF was incorporated, RMS could insist on the influence or > policies of the FSF in such a way, that those hypothetical divisions > of the GNU project and FSF could be limited, or that other directions > of the FSF could be controlled as he wish. So let's amend the policies! Isn't that what we're all talking about? > According to US laws on trademarks, that would be very hard. As number > one, the trademark was meant for GNU project, as I said there are I didn't say "GNU project" I said "RMS". If they assigned someone else do perform that function, they would still - legally, not morally - be acting in the interests of the GNU project - as they see it. It would be horrible and messy and entirely unlikely, but legally they could do it. Let's change it! > To have ownership of trademark is not the power to > choose the leader, I did say indirectly. They can't "choose a leader" but they can empower someone to effectively become the leader, at least to a degree. We all seem to agree this is wrong, but instead of fixing it, we continue arguing with each other about words. > I wish you would get advise by attorney. If the conversation has gotten to this point, both sides have lost. > I find it actually bad manners that you are hypothetically giving > readers of this mailing list an opportunity to divide FSF and GNU. I find it disheartening that you assume that's my purpose. By exposing the hypothetical problem, we can solve it before it becomes a real problem. > You said, you don't want that to happen, but then again, you are the > one presenting the opportunity to others. I doubt they need *me* to see this opportunity. > GNU leader is not chosen, GNU leader decided himself to create GNU > project. The GNU leader himself has already said he's working on how to choose a successor, though.