Richard Stallman Reportedly Steps Down As Head Of The GNU Project

[fsfhfc2018]

Do you really think it is that restricted?

They've made a few strides in that direction. I call that direction "appliance-like distributions" in the sense of "no user-serviceable parts inside." That's an exaggeration, obviously. But of a truth I find most irritating and un-Linux-like (even more un-GNU-like.)

[tildearrow]

1991: Linux released

Yes

2001: Linux becomes a community

2004: Linux becomes Windows

At least it's more customizable than Windows.

2011: Linux becomes iOS

Do you really think it is that restricted?

2019: Linux becomes transgender support group pyramid scheme

*2018
Thankfully not much has changed since they added the CoC...

[desktorp]

When did the Linux community start

1991: Linux released
2001: Linux becomes a community
2004: Linux becomes Windows
2011: Linux becomes iOS
2019: Linux becomes transgender support group pyramid scheme

[cjcox]

Well... and there could be a lot of disagreement, but there are some fundamental ideology differences between the two (pre-crime). So, I just thought it would be a funny meetup if both were jailed. It's like oil and water.... but now.... same..

Edit: both claim genius, etc.. maybe it would only be funny to me...

[starshipeleven]

Actually, I was figuring more the "irony" of them meeting because of "jail".... it could go a lot deeper than your thought.

I don't understand what you are saying. Am I missing some info about the matter?

[cjcox]

The entire concept of comparing someone posting bs to a fucking murderer is kind of off the charts, but I think that given the trends it's probably going to happen within weeks.

Actually, I was figuring more the "irony" of them meeting because of "jail".... it could go a lot deeper than your thought.

[oiaohm]

By the way, I thought that it had been clarified that Stallman is still head of GNU. Is that wrong?

https://www.gnu.org/contact/

Stallman is still head of GNU PR as Stallman calls it "Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project" and of course he can still use the title Founder of GNU..

Management items of GNU on the other hand when you check out contacts and the like go to either the FSF foundation board that he is not a member of any more or parties who are not Stallman now.

Stallman is no longer the absolute head at GNU caused by:
1) Get out of the FSF foundation
2) Change to who picks up critical email accounts related to management.

Lot of people were not aware for a long time being the President of the FSF also made you the absolute CEO of the GNU project.

Stallman current position at GNU is safe for him and the project. Now Stallman can put is verbal or written foot in it and the GNU project or FSF will not have major problems.

azdaha is head of what. Stallman now has less hats on his head and the ones his is still wearing he is fairly good at doing.

[azdaha]

Problem here its more than inappropriate.

FSF Richard Stallman was president of board with GNU he has been absolute CEO/Manager as the Head of GNU. Having these options counter to the law in these positions is problem for the organisation.

Getting Stallman out of those positions is to protect the organisation and Stallman.

I will run a hypothetical that has not happened.

Lets say a git repo at GNU was found to be used for "pedophilia" exactly what do the police have not to presume the following.
1) Stallman covered it up.
2) Stallman would not have reported it to the police if he knew about it.

In this example Stallman could be getting repeatedly held for questioning because of his beliefs not aligning with law and holding a management position. Result while that is going on he could be not functional to the organisation.

There is a long list of thing when you have management position that you are not allowed a personal option on as you must have the same option as the law because you are required to report stuff.

There are many activist groups trying to change laws where the CEO/president does not in fact believe at all in what they are doing and is just employed to keep everything in order.

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.co...w-south-wales/

Thing to remember client legal privilege by law also does not cover a lot of things you listed.

Personal freedoms that people claim are more often a work of fiction in the eyes of the law because lot of them are not part of most countries laws. We all ready live in police states pretending otherwise is really lying to ourselves. We really want to be living in a police state with decent laws.

You had me until the last paragraph. There's a difference between realism and cynicism. Although, I'm not saying that you are entirely guilty of the latter. However, it should be noted that striving for improvement or a better world is not the same as delusions; again, not saying you said that, but worth pointing out. Otherwise, great points.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

By the way, I thought that it had been clarified that Stallman is still head of GNU. Is that wrong?

[oiaohm]

This borders inappropriate discussion, granted. If you are attempting to purely discuss a controversial issue on an intellectual basis, however, it does deserve to be taken with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, despicable people exist in all forums of life; whether it's academic or religious institutions, every-day-life, or even on the internet. Using that as a basis for expanding a police-state to the internet, which affects ALL of us (as presented in the Snowden documents) should be of concern to ALL of us. Whether it's "terrorism" or "pedophilia" (quotes added to indicate intended scary trigger words) or any other specific reason for a basis of garnering support around an issue, personal freedoms have been eroded and will continue to be eroded with the auspices of serving the public good. That's how and why this issue is seen by me. I am far from an apologist of any kind. If you are aiming to counteract a threatening phenomenon through intellectual means, however, you have to weaken its foundation through analysis and sometimes even speculative hypotheses.

Problem here its more than inappropriate.

FSF Richard Stallman was president of board with GNU he has been absolute CEO/Manager as the Head of GNU. Having these options counter to the law in these positions is problem for the organisation.

Getting Stallman out of those positions is to protect the organisation and Stallman.

I will run a hypothetical that has not happened.

Lets say a git repo at GNU was found to be used for "pedophilia" exactly what do the police have not to presume the following.
1) Stallman covered it up.
2) Stallman would not have reported it to the police if he knew about it.

In this example Stallman could be getting repeatedly held for questioning because of his beliefs not aligning with law and holding a management position. Result while that is going on he could be not functional to the organisation.

There is a long list of thing when you have management position that you are not allowed a personal option on as you must have the same option as the law because you are required to report stuff.

There are many activist groups trying to change laws where the CEO/president does not in fact believe at all in what they are doing and is just employed to keep everything in order.

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/client-legal-privilege-in-new-south-wales/

Thing to remember client legal privilege by law also does not cover a lot of things you listed.

Personal freedoms that people claim are more often a work of fiction in the eyes of the law because lot of them are not part of most countries laws. We all ready live in police states pretending otherwise is really lying to ourselves. We really want to be living in a police state with decent laws.

[fsfhfc2018]

Free speech does not mean free of consequences. It only means the government can't arrest you for speech.

This keeps getting said by people who are justifying dishonesty and lynch mobs.

Is it even possible that the people being told they want "consequence-free speech" are actually just complaining about media dishonesty and lynch mobs, or are "being free of consequences" or media-led lynch mobs our only two options? Those seem to to be the only options acknowledged by the lynch mob side.