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
On 07/04/2021 19:17, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 15:04, David Malcolm wrote:
For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to
build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be
permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a
self-appointed "chief GNUisance". I hope the FSF can be saved, since
it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move.
This matches my feelings. If the FSF can be saved, fine, but I don't
think GCC needs to remain associated with it.
If the GNU name is a problem, rename the projects to be simply "GCC",
"Glibc", "GDB" etc without being an initialism.
It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
Collection". That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.
I am a gcc user, but not a developer or contributor. I think it is
important to appreciate the good RMS has done for the software world,
and to accept history as it has happened rather than how we wish it had
been. But going forward I don't think any project or organisation has
anything to gain by association with RMS, but will have much to lose.
To a large extent, he has done his job - the free and open source worlds
are now far too big and well-established to fail easily. The time for
fanaticism, ideology and childish (ref. "Chief GNUisance") and
anti-social leadership is over - pragmatism, practicality and
cooperation are the way of the future. It is time for the FSF to say to
RMS, "Thank you for all you have done. Now move over for the next
generation, have a happy retirement, and please don't spoil the future
for the rest of us". (We still need a few ideologists involved, to
remind us of important principles if anyone strays too far. It's like a
healthy democratic parliament requiring a few representatives from the
greens, communists and other niche parties - you just don't want them
running the show.)
For me as a person, I cannot condone certain aspects of RMS' behaviour.
I strongly disapprove of "proof by accusation and rumour" or "trial by
public opinion", but there is enough documented evidence in his own
publications and clearly established personal accounts that no one can
be in doubt that his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
FOSS community. (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)
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.
