Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org>]

On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here you go:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235218.html

Thanks

> - this is unfair, RMS is being subjected to a witch hunt (irrelevant to my
> question, it doesn't tell me what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU
> or FSF)

Fair enough, even though your message starts by making it personal.

That said, even if the answer to the question about benefits turned out
to be "none whatsoever, as usual", that wouldn't be a motivator for
change to the status quo.  It would be as much of a reason to "why" as
for "why not".  So there would have to be something *else* that was
sensible to drive this pursuit, and to drive it right now.

Like, some other expected or perceived benefit that for whatever reason
wasn't viable before, and that seems more appealing than the current
situation.  No such motivating factor has been mentioned, and though GNU
is hardly a social GNUtopia, I expect you to find that the pastures are
greener on the other side of the fence, regardless of which side you're
on ;-)


> - RMS ensures GCC stays honest (implying the rest of us can't be trusted or
> don't *really* believe in FOSS, I don't think it's true and don't see this
> as an advantage)

Trust is not rational indeed, but a lot of people trust RMS to be
committed to FS values, and have little reason to trust people they
don't know, even if we're just as trustworthy.


That trust is probably most relevant in connection with FSF's
responsibilities of copyright enforcement, publishing new versions of
GNU licenses, and licensing GNU software assigned to it.  As various
organizations in the FLOSS space have been steered away from their
original purposes, I find legitimacy in people's preferences for someone
credibly committed, unbudging and incorruptible sharing in these
responsibilities.

FSF's historically credible commitment to the cause, reinforced by RMS's
presence, appears to offer a significant deterrent to copyright
infringement, whereas other popular projects that have dispersed their
copyrights, such as Linux, are frequent victims of legal neglect (and
occasionally malice) that leaves users unable to enjoy the freedoms they
deserve, despite laudable efforts of enforcement and of reaggregation of
representation, to try to make enforcement more viable and effective.

The reaggregation efforts suggest that dispersal does make enforcement
more difficult, so unless you wish to make the project more vulnerable
to infringement, I'd strongly advise some aggregation plan in place.



> - RMS doesn't get involved in GCC anyway, there's no reason to disassociate
> from him (still doesnt tell me what benefit there is, and ignores
> perception problems caused by that association)

No change to motivate change either, and ignores perception problems
caused by the poorly-justified and -timed termination of that
association.


> - it is not wise to disrespect the GNU Father (rambling troll who is listed
> as a GNU maintainer despite contributing no code, further devaluing the
> whole project)

That was unkind of you.  You're also leaping to conclusions based on
incorrect premises, as has happened so often in this conversation :-/

Sorting out some copyright issues sometimes takes longer than everyone
would like.  That who was never sloppy with copyrights gets to throw the
first stone.

> But lots of cult-like behaviour that helped me make up my mind.

You know what's funny?  Some cults are in favor of something, and some
are against something.  While what you label a cult is based on
philosophical and ethical foundations for the common good, the hate cult
you chose is built upon intolerance, half truths, false accusations,
repeated lies, significant influxes of freedom-denying capital, and
opportunistic timing.

Yeah, it's not really funny :-(

> If the GNU project and the FSF want to keep RMS, fine, they can have him

Thank you very much :-)

> But they can't tell me to be happy about it and they can't tell me
> where to contribute my code.

*nod*


> If the GNU project wants to pull my code from a fork, without my copyright
> assignment, I will consider that a small victory because it will mean
> they're willing to accept the contributions without owning the copyright.
> I'd like that.

Please talk to a lawyer you trust about this.  I don't know what you're
trying to accomplish, but if you value copyleft and would rather not
weaken it, I believe a competent lawyer will tell you why that's not
such a wise thing to like, and how to mitigate the downsides if you,
erhm, insist on liking it ;-)

> and w.r.t what you said to Dave about "selling our services" ...

I see nothing wrong about selling services of Free Software development.

> a cheap shot which assumes we aren't contributing under
> personal assignments to the FSF

Without a personal assignment on file?!?

> and assumes we have no choice to work
> elsewhere if we don't like the terms).

I don't know where you got that assumption, but it wasn't from me.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar