GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Rodgers]

On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote:

>> On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your missives 
>> on
>> this topic, hoping for exactly that very  thing to occur.

> I do not see how you and your friends at redhat could really get any 
> value
> from it, because being a seeker of truth means refusing to make 
> assumptions
> about things that you do not know. The moment you assume that you know 
> because
> of what you believe, your intelligence will sleep. It is my wish and my 
> blessing
> that every human being has their intelligence awake.

On 2021-04-10 07:49, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:

>> There is a big difference between suppression or censorship, and 
>> wanting
>> people in leadership positions to be representative of the values of 
>> the
>> group they lead.  RMS can have all the opinions he wants, and act has 
>> he
>> will (until he ends up arrested for it), but if he is to remain a
>> representative for others (FSF, GNU and/or GCC), then he has a duty to
>> act appropriately according to the values those organisations think 
>> are
>> important.
> If you look at the history of computing you will find that it was 
> mostly
> crooks and people of very mixed kind of qualities.  Not al all saints.
> Many of them quite unscrupolous and not very clever.  And still they 
> managed
> to do great things.
> 
> So it tells a kid: They could do that, why can't you?  That was
> certainly what turned me on.  Freedom 0 also says "The freedom to run
> a program as you wish, for any purpose".
> 
> Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from 
> Aleksandr
> Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest 
> Hemingway,
> Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë?  From the 
> latter
> of course!

So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing anything 
of value
to the discussion of GCC governance then?