There's something very confusing about this entire debate, that signals some clear confusion about the role of the FSF.
GCC is part of the GNU project. RMS is founder and leader of the GNU project. RMS is also founder of the FSF. The FSF was initially founded to support the GNU project. The FSF later expanded its activities to other campaigns, but supporting the GNU project remains a very important focus of FSF's activities. However, the FSF does NOT control nor own the GNU project. That appears to be a very common misperception. The FSF offers various pro-bono services to the GNU project, among them guarding some GNU assets for the GNU project, but the GNU project is an independent (unincorporated) organization, with its own separate and independent governance structure. The conversation has supposedly moved on from being centered on the (very indirect) relationship with RMS to being centered around the (even more indirect) relationship with the FSF. The trigger for the present movements seems to be RMS's reappointment to the board of directors of the FSF. That makes no sense to me. RMS's closest roles regarding GCC have been of initial developer, leader of the project that GCC belongs in, and occasional participant in discussions among the GCC SC, and none of this has changed recently. What is the relevance of his reappointment to the board of a separate organization he's founded, long participated in, and presided for most of its history, and that has supported both the GNU project at large and the GNU toolchain specifically, in ways that haven't changed at all, not when he resigned from the board, not when he was reappointed?!? Can anyone come up with any rational motivation for this move right now? -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
