Re: migrating away from the FDL
Mathieu Roy wrote:
He thinks he has absolute power *over the FSF*. He makes no claims
regarding anything *else*. However, the FSF is run as his personal
fiefdom, in which his opinion is final, no matter *what*. This is not
normal for a charitable organization, and I don't think it's entirely
healthy, either. Essentially, the FSF is run more like a private
foundation than a public charitable foundation.
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com> a tapoté :
Thomas Hood <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether
>he is also autocratic, that is, "a dictatorial ruler", I don't know
>because I am not a member of the FSF.
As a GCC developer, I can tell you: He is autocratic. Sadly.
According to the definition we brought to this list of autocracy
(someone who thinks he got absolute power), I can discuss your point
So do many autocrats. This is more a kindness given by the monarch to
his subjects than anything else, and that's exactly the tone which seems
to emanate from RMS.
RMS usually accept to read everyone's point of view (unless they are
obviously offensive). So it cannot be that autocrat you're talking
Which is fine to a certain extent; Linus Torvalds does the same thing
Indeed he leads some projects the way he wants to exactly and if
you're in, you have to accept it or to leave.
However, RMS treats the FSF (and all FSF projects) this way. This means
that giving money to the FSF is really not significantly different from
giving money to RMS personally to do with as he pleases. The Board of
Directors appears to be ineffectual. *That* is unfortunate.
I considered giving money to the FSF, but when I realized this, I
decided it was a bad idea to do so. I'd rather give money to a real
charitable organization than to an individual with erratic views. Your
mileage may vary.
I'm still willing to give copyrights to the FSF, but *only* because the
'grantback' term in the copyright assignment form gives me the right to
relicense my work under the terms of my choice.
But he also gave you the
freedom to take his software and to use it to make your own software.
If every "autocrat" was giving the permission to execute / read /
modify / redistribute their work, I wish to see many more autocrats
Yes, that would be nice, wouldn't it? :-)
This message, insofar as it was created by me, is released to the public