Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
On 2021-03-24 19:55, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
Does there appear to be some form of hidden coordination behind these
articles?
As I understand, RMS always thought that proprietary software
companies would make some kind of large legal attack on the GNU
project, so he was very particular about setting up the FSF and
arranging for copyrights on many GNU packages to be held by the FSF.
If we interpret the SCO mess as that attack, the strategy seems to
have worked: SCO did not attack GNU, but instead attempted to attack
the Linux kernel project. Ultimately, they failed but I now wonder if
we may be seeing a different angle of an attack on the GNU project
that RMS did not anticipate.
I also have similar suspicions. If you can replace the stewards of
free software with meek, emotional weaklings, or fools, you can easily
manipulate those projects in whatever direction you see fit.
"You must accept this backdoor patch because it's written by a
member of a vulnerable, disadvantaged group."
If you don't think that's coming, just sit back and watch.
I have vague memories of similar incidents having already occurred,
although I do not recall exactly what they were. I think they were
actually demands for direct commit access, on the grounds that none of
the active developers were [insert FOOBAR group name here]. I want to
say that the attempts failed, but I am not certain.
As a maintainer of a package that I did not write, I expect that I would
react very badly to anyone trying to push an obviously defective patch
on grounds of personal identity.
-- Jacob
