From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::e]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4329393BC19 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 06:38:00 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org A4329393BC19 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=darrington.wattle.id.au Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gcc-refused-email@gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46126) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lUkmE-0006Vo-AK; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 02:37:58 -0400 Received: from de.cellform.com ([88.217.224.109]:50042 helo=jocasta.intra) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUkm9-0000t6-QS; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 02:37:58 -0400 Received: from jocasta.intra (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jocasta.intra (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-14~deb10u1) with ESMTPS id 1396boT6009236 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 9 Apr 2021 08:37:50 +0200 Received: (from john@localhost) by jocasta.intra (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 1396boSN009235; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 08:37:50 +0200 Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 08:37:50 +0200 From: John Darrington To: David Malcolm Cc: John Darrington , "Alfred M. Szmidt" , gcc@gnu.org, Mark Wielaard Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF Message-ID: <20210409063749.GA8596@jocasta.intra> References: <20210406222225.GF2711@wildebeest.org> <6aca6d2f057a5bbbd23016c1518f1beeef1c1f96.camel@redhat.com> <20210407162454.GA22759@jocasta.intra> <20210408064528.GA10349@jocasta.intra> <94ca414af699bab851008f86f006db4bd8bf1929.camel@redhat.com> <20210408182128.GA19715@jocasta.intra> <5f532c131146b9c7549f03eac7a9da3a29db1a2e.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5f532c131146b9c7549f03eac7a9da3a29db1a2e.camel@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=88.217.224.109; envelope-from=john@darrington.wattle.id.au; helo=jocasta.intra X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 06:38:02 -0000 On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:35:23PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > RMS was the first person to be involved in GNU and GCC.  Others > became > involved later (under his leadership).  Their contribution was and > continues to be welcome.  They are also free to stop contributing any > time they wish to do so. I intend to continue contributing to GCC (and to Free Software in general), but RMS is not my leader. Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed anyone as "mein Führer". I think he would be very much concerned if anyone tried to confer a cult hero status on him. Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step down as leader of GNU. Rather than calling for his head on a block it would be more constructive to think to the future. Unfortunately to date, I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary to take over the role. > Then why do you write this from your employer's email? My employer gives me permission. That's good to know. My employer on the other hand expressly forbids it. And I think that is a reasonable prohibition (we're allowed to use their internet connection for personal use) but not allowed to use the company name (including email addresses) in personal communication. Even if they didn't prohibit this, I wouldn't dream of using my company's email or letterhead for personal communication. Given the reaction that some have faced for questioning RMS, I'd prefer to keep that address private. So in other words, you are happy to make contraversial statements, but don't wish to face the responsibility. Come on David! By all means question RMS (or anyone else) but have the guts to do this under your own identity rather than duck in and out behind a veil of quasi-anonymity! I'm glad that you're going to continue to contribute to GCC. J'