Anyone taking this seriously at this point is naïve.
Other than not being a statement from RMS, what Leah is complaining about,
were it from RMS, would not be without precedent at all. A few years ago, the
maintainer of GnuTLS announced an intention to disassociate it from GNU, not
for some stupid reason like "f*** you, FSF!", but because of legitimate
grievances regarding how GNU development works (which I don't know anything
about, not being a GNU maintainer myself). RMS rejected this with the exact
reasoning being used by people on the mailing list mentioned. Personally, I
find this reasoning to be perfectly sound: you can stop contributing to a
component of the GNU Project, but there are two things you cannot do:
1. You cannot continue using "GNU" as a part of its name.
2. You cannot order the FSF to stop developing the component as a part of the
GNU Project.
So I agree; Libreboot can become a fork of GNU Libreboot not associated with
GNU, but Leah doesn't have the right to stop the FSF from continuing GNU
Libreboot's development with someone else. The fact that Leah started
Libreboot and later made it a GNU component is irrelevant.
But really, this is an entirely semantic argument. Who forked who doesn't
matter. I think Leah is just trying to keep stirring the pot because she gets
an endorphin rush feeling like she's bringing about social justice by
punishing people she perceives to be evil. So please, everyone, join me in
sitting back and laughing at the joke that this really is. (You especially,
t3g.)
