On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 12:36, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Again, it isn't about this one or two incidents. I am sure someone can > find a way to explained it away by saying people simply misunderstood > his intentions or that no law was broken. But it is about a pattern of > behavior that shows RMS creates a misogynist, racist and transphobic > environment by (hopefully unknowingly) setting the example that others > will then follow and amplify.
Probably unintentionally, but he has allowed the GNU Project to become a nasty cult of personality. The FSF seems to be imploding (with mass resignations in the past week). I don't think GCC benefits from being associated with either of them. Is there any incident where FSF being the copyright holder for GCC has made a difference? Are there any GPL violations involving GCC code that were resolved only because all copyright resides with a single entity, that couldn't have been resolved on behalf of individual copyright holders? Are we still worried about BigCorp trying to do a proprietary fork of GCC? Because BigCorp, OtherCorp etc. have shown that they would prefer to create a new toolchain from scratch rather than use GNU code. And if EvilCorp want to make their own proprietary compiler with secret optimizations, they'll just use LLVM instead of bothering to violate the GPL. The work done to make it impossible to steal GCC code was a success: nobody is even interested in stealing it now. There is an easier option. Can we break our (already weak) ties to GNU?
