> It's supposed to represent everyone who fights for a future where software is > open
Is it possible? To reopresent everyone. Shouldn't he instead represent that he's expected to represent? >From the fsf.org: ---->8---- ... Our Core Work The FSF maintains historic articles covering free software philosophy and maintains the Free Software Definition - to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software. ... The FSF publishes the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) ... ---------->8------ and so on. Here is nothing about rms (or any FSF leader/board stuff/member) must represent _you_. Or me, in turn. > I mean not even the fr*cking FSFE knew about that Why it should? Different organization. > And there was no apology from RMS There was no apology from RMS "critics", which e.g. improperly quote RMS in the case of Minsky "defence" (the blame was itself is a lie). > We as a project that believes that diversity and democracy You place your political opinion for members of the project, which even can't vote. Is this a democracy? > Obviously, everyone is free to disagree and can sign the support letter. > There is no problem See above. That's not a problem for you, yes.