[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
Re: Support for RMS and criticism of the "bottom-up"/"social contract" power grab attempt.
Thu, 31 Oct 2019 18:38:07 +0700
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 10/31/19 4:11 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>>>> On 10/31/19 3:01 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>>>>> Marcel <email@example.com> 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?
Re: Women and GNU and RMS (was Re: something else), Federico Leva (Nemo), 2019/10/31
Re: Women and GNU and RMS (was Re: something else), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2019/10/31
Re: Support for RMS and criticism of the "bottom-up"/"social contract" power grab attempt., Dmitry Alexandrov, 2019/10/31