They want to replace the entire FSF board and other news
On April 12, 2021 the FSF board elected Richard M Stallman to their board.
Initially, they only wanted the FSF board to un-elect RMS, but the FSF ignored their request. Now, folks want to replace the entire board.
So far, over 3,000 have signed the demand note. Not very many compared to the tens to hundreds of thousands of FOSS developers and millions of users. Lots of SWJ and "Progressives" trying to stir the pot.
Earlier today on the GCC Steering Committee mail list the following was posted, after a heated debate:
Some disagreed with this action. And others. And even others.
In related news the GCC Steering Committee removed the requirement for contributors to make the FSF a license holder of their contributed software.
It caused Mark Wielaard to ask:
That would make it difficult for a distro developer to be sure they have GPL rights to all the source they use to create their distro.
NEVER FEAR, Google has you covered with their "Open Source Insights" website:
How convenient. Just when the FSF and the GCC Steering Committee decided to make FSF license holding optional, Google jumps in. It's free now, but later?
Initially, they only wanted the FSF board to un-elect RMS, but the FSF ignored their request. Now, folks want to replace the entire board.
Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in the free software community for a long time. He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety. These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities. With his recent reinstatement to the Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation, we call for the entire Board of the FSF to step down and for RMS to be removed from all leadership positions.
Earlier today on the GCC Steering Committee mail list the following was posted, after a heated debate:
I am sending this on behalf of the GCC Steering Committee.
In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page based on his role in the GNU Project, though his role as a member
of the Steering Committee has been ambiguous and he was not a member of the Steering Committee when EGCS became GCC[1]. We no longer feel that this listing serves the best interests of the GCC developer and user community. Therefore, we are removing him from the page.
In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page based on his role in the GNU Project, though his role as a member
of the Steering Committee has been ambiguous and he was not a member of the Steering Committee when EGCS became GCC[1]. We no longer feel that this listing serves the best interests of the GCC developer and user community. Therefore, we are removing him from the page.
In related news the GCC Steering Committee removed the requirement for contributors to make the FSF a license holder of their contributed software.
It caused Mark Wielaard to ask:
This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
Why was there no public discussion on this?
I certainly understand not wanting to assign copyright to the FSF anymore given the recent board decisions. But changing GCC from having
a shared copyright pool to having lots of individual (or company?) copyright holders seems like a regression for a strong copyleft
project.
With individual copyright holders companies no longer have clear way to know whether they are in compliance unless they talk to each and every
individual copyright holder (see also the linux kernel, where there are some individuals who randomly sue companies just to get some money to
drop the lawsuit). And for users it will be harder to get compliant sources if they can no lon ger simply ask the shared copyright holder,but instead will have to get enough individual copyright holders to get a distributor into compliance.
Why was there no public discussion on this?
I certainly understand not wanting to assign copyright to the FSF anymore given the recent board decisions. But changing GCC from having
a shared copyright pool to having lots of individual (or company?) copyright holders seems like a regression for a strong copyleft
project.
With individual copyright holders companies no longer have clear way to know whether they are in compliance unless they talk to each and every
individual copyright holder (see also the linux kernel, where there are some individuals who randomly sue companies just to get some money to
drop the lawsuit). And for users it will be harder to get compliant sources if they can no lon ger simply ask the shared copyright holder,but instead will have to get enough individual copyright holders to get a distributor into compliance.
NEVER FEAR, Google has you covered with their "Open Source Insights" website:
Understand your dependencies
Your software and your users rely not only on the code you write, but also on the code your code depends on, the code that code depends on, and so on. An accurate view of the complete dependency graph is critical to understanding the state of your project. And it?s not just code: you need to know about security vulnerabilities, licenses, recent releases, and more.
Your software and your users rely not only on the code you write, but also on the code your code depends on, the code that code depends on, and so on. An accurate view of the complete dependency graph is critical to understanding the state of your project. And it?s not just code: you need to know about security vulnerabilities, licenses, recent releases, and more.