Dear DJ Delorie, There could be some misunderstandings of your message. You have clarified it, thank you.
* DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> [2020-01-04 06:48]: > > making, in my personal opinion and based on the Massachusets laws > > where FSF was incorporated, RMS could insist on the influence or > > policies of the FSF in such a way, that those hypothetical divisions > > of the GNU project and FSF could be limited, or that other directions > > of the FSF could be controlled as he wish. > > So let's amend the policies! Isn't that what we're all talking > about? I don't think so. The subject of the discussion, so far I know and understand it is the protest that came from Guix community, in particular, from Ludovic Courtès, who accused RMS of the thoughtcrime and who started dividing the Guix and GNU community. The harassment and public shaming is still continuing, the discussion that is going on now is totally off any topic, as "social contract" is not a decision of RMS, and not wanted in GNU. As simple as that. They still try to divide and conquer the GNU project, instead of simply making their own distribution or their own website. Why should any policy of GNU be changed when they have been functioning well for decades? GNU and FSF are separate, this has been published and announced by the FSF and by GNU project, thus there is nothing to discuss. Initiatives with evil intentions have been given on this list by the principle to divide and conquer. It is well known principle in wars. It is rumor mongering. One groups is trying to take over GNU project, by using generalities, by not specifying what is wrong, by keeping and having secret agenda. > > According to US laws on trademarks, that would be very hard. As > > number one, the trademark was meant for GNU project, as I said > > there are > > I didn't say "GNU project" I said "RMS". If they assigned someone > else do perform that function, they would still - legally, not > morally - be acting in the interests of the GNU project - as they > see it. It would be horrible and messy and entirely unlikely, but > legally they could do it. Let's change it! FSF is not against RMS. There is no such announcement that I have seen. RMS is founder of FSF and they work closely together, that you can be sure of. There is absolutely no reason for FSF to have animosity towards RMS. Resigning as President, does not make RMS resigning as Founder. Fundamental principles for the FSF have been set by RMS and are being conducted by FSF. Thus there is no reason to doubt. That is like to say that child is against its own father, while child never expressed it that way. So there is no reason to doubt. In my opinion, to act best in the interest of GNU project, would be to remove Ludovic Courtès and their company from the GNU website, and let them discuss their own distribution elsewhere and to stop the discussion of "social contracts". And otherwise to stop discussion about things which have been already declared as off topic, such as "social contract" or "people voting on what to be done with GNU" -- it is not in their power to do so, it is disrespectful, shameful and does not bring them good. Jean
