Marcel <m...@runbox.com> wrote: > On 10/31/19 4:11 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >>> On 10/31/19 3:01 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >>>> Marcel <m...@runbox.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.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature