A "joke" in the glibc manual

Posted Nov 8, 2018 16:21 UTC (Thu) by SEJeff (guest, #51588)
In reply to: A "joke" in the glibc manual by civodul
Parent article: A "joke" in the glibc manual

But as a BDFL, is there any way to maintain GNU while still directly opposing him? Do you ever forsee a fork of GNU as an idea / collection of devs due to him not staying current with the thoughts of the overall project?

Shortened: At what time does RMS become too toxic for GNU to exist and as a result the entire thing is forked?

A "joke" in the glibc manual

Posted Nov 9, 2018 16:23 UTC (Fri) by civodul (guest, #58311) [Link]

In practice GNU maintainers are fairly autonomous, which creates little incentive to "fork." However, at any time, RMS might show up and dictate his own will, as he did in this case. High-profile projects like the toolchain or Emacs are likely "targets."

Over the years many GNU packages have taken steps to protect their independence: some have their own infrastructure, and some like GNOME left GNU for all practical purposes. This is collateral damage of authoritarianism.

A "joke" in the glibc manual

Posted Nov 9, 2018 16:26 UTC (Fri) by SEJeff (guest, #51588) [Link]

Yeah for someone who always proclaims freedom, I find his dictatorial tendencies a bit alarming. This is why I’m glad that as a general rule the “open source” crowd won over the “free software” crowd. He’s too overbearing to be pragmatic and get along with people at times like these, and it literally hurts his own cause by creating totally avoidable drama.