On 08/04/2021 18:43, Christopher Dimech wrote: > >> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 3:00 AM >> From: "David Brown" <da...@westcontrol.com> >> To: "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely....@gmail.com>, "David Malcolm" >> <dmalc...@redhat.com> >> Cc: "GCC Development" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Mark Wielaard" <m...@klomp.org> >> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF >> <snip> >> From a practical viewpoint, I am concerned that opinions about him will >> spread. If the gcc project is not disassociated from anything involving >> RMS, I fear the project will suffer from that assosiation, no matter how >> unfair it may be. At some point, someone in the public relations >> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the >> project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a >> misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and >> will cut off all support from the top down. The other companies will >> immediately follow. The gcc lead developers like Ian, Jonathan, Joseph >> and Nathan will be given the choice of leaving gcc or leaving the job >> that puts food on their tables. gcc is not a hobby project run by >> amateurs in their free time - it is a serious project that needs >> commercial backing as well as the massive personal dedication it receives. > > If RMS in not indispensable, Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan are likewise > not indispensable. Someone could that over and make their own project and > lead it how they wish. There are many projects where the original author > knows best where to lead. Classic examples include medical project Gnu > Health and my project. Although can also mess a project up, mistakes are > allowed. Einstein did not get his ideas from committees, neither did > Stallman. > At work, I have never encountered any committee that done me any good. >
RMS was key to getting GNU and the whole concept of Free Software off the ground. He was key to the initial development of several important pieces of software. He is no longer key to the development of any software in a technical sense, nor is he key to the philosophical or ideological parts of the process. I don't think that any of Ian, Jonathan, and the others are indispensable. But I think all of them together are. If any one or two of the key gcc developers left the project, life would go on. If my feared scenario occurred and many or all of the current gcc developers who are employed by major IT and hardware companies had to leave, the project would be dead. > A good book to read is Maskell's "The New Idea of a University". > If some think serious maintainers care about some public relations > group at IBM, Google, or Facebook, they are highly mistaken. I > don't care. As I said, I am a user. I don't speak for the main developers of gcc, or the maintainers of subprojects. I expect that they do care about the attitudes of the companies that employ them, at the very least. > > Stallman can think whatever he likes. There exist many valid opinions > on questions like exactly how young people can be to get married or be > depicted in pornography. New Hampshire law allows 13 year olds to get > married. The only problem is that many western people are too far > freaked out in relation to children, sex, and colonial guilt. > Stallman can indeed think whatever he likes, in that no one else can decide his opinions for him. He cannot /do/ whatever he likes - I believe (but do not claim to be able to prove) that some of his past actions would fall foul of laws against sexual harassment. However, those of us who think differently on such matters - and that is, I think, the solid majority of people (not just westerns) - will not want anything to do with a person who holds such opinions and encourages such attitudes.
