After reading that post I'm still confused about why they want to "split off."
In a reply, Philip Van Hoof states that he believes that the GNOME community has a different philosophy than Stallman and the FSF, that this has long been an unresolved issue with GNOME, and proposes a vote to separate GNOME from the FSF and GNU.
The easier and more rational option would be to just institutionalize Stallman. Unfortunately some people are opposed to that because of sentimental reasons.
If that is your way of presenting the case that Stallman is perfectly sane it somehow falls short of the mark.
It's a bit like the defense councilor stating to the judge that the defendant may have a habit or two that is out of the ordinary but otherwise he's a perfectly normal human being.
Don't we all, you know, deep down inside.
I'm not sure of Stallmans' dietary habits but I would definitely count that one against him. I can't begin to fathom where you dug up this nugget of highly relevant information though, if you didn't just made it up.
(alternatively i suppose it could have just popped up on google, but that makes this fact more disturbing for the internet as a whole.)
It's computer software, folks. One can make very strong claims that free software is better or preferable to proprietary software without putting it in the manichaean terms that Stallman does.
As far as injustices in the world goes, proprietary software is pretty damn far down. A friend of mine was called "evil" to his face by Richard Stallman because he once worked at Microsoft. "Evil" is a (bit of a) loaded term and not appropriate for someone who also has contributed a great deal to the open-source community. I can't imagine how incidents like this, and Stallman's absolutely-no-compromise attitude in general, do more good than harm to the free software movement.
People need to keep things in perspective.
Computer software runs just about everything in the world. It is a multi-billion dollar industry that employees many many people. It isn't just anything.
His no-compromises method has done far more for the movement than anything. If you want some comprimes, look to the Open Source movement and the BSD license.
Which is exactly why RMS is viewed as extreme. If the world followed his philosophy, it would not be a "multi-billion dollar industry that employs many many people." It would be slightly larger than HAM radio, full of smart and well meaning hobbyists trying to scratch personal itches but not adding up to much of consequence (which pretty much describes the state of the movement today).
RMSs response has always been a vague bit of handwaving about creating more innovative business processes around the free software but which basically amount to every software company becoming a services company. I'm sorry, but I really don't need or want services for 99.995% of the software I use every day.
Most of Europe is now democratic because extremists once fought off absolutist monarchies. The US is a democracy because a bunch of extremists convinced the people that this was the way to go.
I live in Brazil. I truly wish we had more extremists like those when we declared our independence and when we became a republic. In fact, I wish we had a stronger tradition of extremism.
If you want extremist, you would look at ESR, not RMS. ESR is an actually a hardcore anarcho-capitalist, and I happen to confirm for myself that ESR studied Austrian economics(Hayek at the very least) from a little chat on freenode. Of course, I have no transcript that this happens so you have to ask ESR himself.
I know I am concerned with his ongoing shift of attitude to anti-proprietary as opposed to pro-free. That's incredibly damaging.
The problem is that some people can't admit that they just don't care about FOSS as much as Stallman does and try to discredit him because they don't have the guts to say so.
It's okay to disagree with Stallman and he has never attacked anyone who has openly voiced an opinion against his ideals. It's not okay to say he is crazy when in reality he one of the most consistent and logical thinkers in FOSS.
Also I feel extremely strongly about FOSS. Disagreeing with stallman doesn't make you a proprietary apologist.
Stallman has been fairl consistent and I feel like that is the root of the issue. It's a very hardline attitude but more importantly one that treats every other view as entirely wrong and disdainful. I can't agree with that: I find it very damaging.
But then I also feel the gpl is fairly damaging in it's attitude too. So I appreciate it might be just ones stance over hat Free actually stands for (for me it is "without limits" :-))
I would personally see a lot more level headed and rational programmers.
"My access to web pages is by sending mail to a server which does the equivalent of wget and mails them back to me. (Once I get the page, I can view it with various browsers.) I transfer mail a couple of times a day and usually have no net connection otherwise." (11/8/2009)
A little extreme, but an interesting hack.
Him: Proprietary software is evil
Others: Stallman is insane
Only fools that don't read his work brush him off so easily; otherwise they'd refute his positions with real arguments.
In the long run, it would affect what sort of contributors and users GNOME would have -- people from the Open Source camp who think proprietary software is a nuisance but not "immoral" or "evil" as Mr. Stallman suggests. Or people from the Free Software camp who think all proprietary software is "immoral" and "evil" and should thus be forbidden by law.
Of course, it would also be a blow for the Free Software community if a major project decides to stop supporting/promoting its political goals.
In the short run, of course, only a few words on the GNOME homepage would have to be changed.
Do people really hold these ridiculous fundamentalist views? :/
Mr. Stallman repeatedly called proprietary software "unethical" and "immoral", words we usually use to describe theft, rape and murder. If you assume the premise to be true, forbidding proprietary software by law is a rational conclusion. Then, it's just a matter of political power.
From an interview with Mr. Stallman [1]:
"We have a paradoxical situation where one particular area of business [...] uses a particular business practice that's based on subjugating the public, based on dividing and conquering. Well, when there's a business practice that conflicts with an important value like freedom and community, prohibit it."
And further:
(Interviewer): "Should, should all software be free?" (Mr. Stallman): "Yes."
From a different interview [2]:
"Non-free software is basically antisocial, it subjugates it users, and it should not exist."
[1] http://www.pigdog.org/interviews/stallman/interview_with_sta... [2] http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/4795