Also, GNU is not RMS, and RMS is not GNU.
Also, GNU is not RMS, and RMS is not GNU.
(Note, I came to this conclusion after reading about a bunch of his technical accomplishments, which I can see are awesome, even if the obvious megalomania evidently occasionally dampens their effects.
I think his work is fantastic, his politics are largely reasonable - but I think his self-obsession is often the driver behind a large amount of damaging and counterproductive behaviour.
Politics is the art of compromise - not convincing everybody you're a saint while alienating your natural allies.)
I’m not a fan of him personally, and many of his technical decisions have been questionable, but he’s achieved a lot, and the world is better for the FSF’s existence.
I wouldn't have any problem with the 'GNU/Linux' idea if it wasn't so obviously part of a greater pattern - when he talks about it, he talks about GNU being the primary contributor - but he typically uses the singular, even when the plural would refer to GNU, and the singular refers to himself.
I also think the world is better for the FSF, but I cant help but wonder, what would the world be like if the FSF was headed by somebody who felt it more natural to think in terms of 'we', as opposed to 'I'? Even somebody not nearly as technically accomplished, charismatic, and intelligent? I think ultimately, it's the ideas, of knowledge as the common wealth of humankind, rather than the curious personality of RMS, that gave the GNU project its power - and ultimately, it's the limitations of RMS that hold it back.
Not at all. Android depends on tons of GNU software.
[0]: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/a6ebb50040c5862c/
So good job.
As long as RMS is such a prominent figure the GNU/FSF organization there's no separation.
he wants to champion free software, not every just cause under the sun.
IoT devices shipping with insecure configurations is a "failure" of an infosec champion/thought-leader to step up and save us.
On the free software front, RMS contribution are mind blowing to me. I'd be proud if I can ever contribute a fraction of what he did.
The IoT thing was a perfect opportunity to step in, step up, and show some leadership. Billions of devices owned by tens or hundreds of millions of people, all running open-source software!
Instead we get this miserable hell because of his laser focus on licensing instead of responsible software.
Infosec, to their credit, were raising alarm bells from the beginning but nobody had to listen to them because they don't control anything.
GNU, however, does. If they'd extended GPL to include provisions for ensuring that the GPL software on it can be updated in a timely and secure manner, life would be a lot better for people.
And what do you expect the FSF to do? Out-lobby consumer electronics manufacturers to pass laws requiring some kind of security update guarantee? Even if they succeeded, could we call the result empowerment? Getting out from under the thumb of the manufacturer and actually _owning_ the things you own is the point, not the theoretical promise of recourse if the party which practically retains all of their power over you can be proven in court to have misbehaved, only after the abuse has taken place.
This is absolutely the same fight, and if anything the approach you're arguing for is more conciliatory, not more ‘relevant’.
There's going to be a billion variants on every little IoT device in the future and all the best intentions and enthusiasm on the part of the free software community will not be enough to provide patches to all of them.
This is something that's the responsibility of the vendor, and the GNU software license could make that a requirement for using the software.
It's not about laws, it's about licensing. If they don't like the license they're free to use someone else's software.
Having inexpensive operating system software you can dump on a cheap device without license fees is both a great thing, and also what got us into this IoT hot mess.