[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Support for RMS and criticism of the "bottom-up"/"social contract" p

From: Marcel
Subject: Re: Support for RMS and criticism of the "bottom-up"/"social contract" power grab attempt.
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 18:38:07 +0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.1

On 10/31/19 6:34 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> Marcel <> wrote:
>> On 10/31/19 4:11 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>>>> On 10/31/19 3:01 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>>>>> Marcel <> wrote:
>>>>>> What I do see are volunteers trying to opportunistically derail the Free 
>>>>>> Software Movement at a moment of perceived weakness for RMS.  I read 
>>>>>> concerns about the eventual death of RMS to the survival of GNU, yet RMS 
>>>>>> is not dead yet, and these detractors are trying to push him out while 
>>>>>> he's still alive. I have deep concerns about the day RMS stops being 
>>>>>> involved in the Free Software Movement, but that is hardly an argument 
>>>>>> to push him out while he's still active and involved.
>>>>> When heʼs dead, it may be too late to discuss anything.
>>>>> History teaches us, that a lifework of great leader, who neglects an 
>>>>> opportunity to step aside and let his successors to display themselves 
>>>>> while still keeping an eye on them, might go rack and ruin in a moment.
>>> You donʼt try say, that when ‘detractors’, that want to derail free 
>>> software movement (whoever you mean), wonʼt need to push him out first, 
>>> because heʼs already dead, it will be any better, do you?
>> I don't understand the rest of your statement, so I cannot respond.
> Your point, as I understand it: the discussion on the future of GNU shall not 
> be held because: (1) there are ‘detractors’ who want to derail free software 
> movement, and (2) RMS is still with us.
> My point: your point is invalid, because the situation will never be better 
> than that: (1) ill-wishers to the free software will exist in any foreseeable 
> future, while (2) RMS is not.

No, that was not my point, you misread my statement. I think we probably
hold the same opinion, but I will not go into details because this list
is censored and my messages are rejected without a cause. What can we
discuss under conditions of censorship such as those? Will this message
make it through?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]