Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Trivia

I have removed this (formerly this) addition by Pakaran which reads:

"Stallman's personal homepage has "action items" much like some political party and action group sites, often taking a far-left perspective; he typically updates these items daily.".

Firstly i think that it doesn't belong in the trivia section at all, a trivia section should contain knowledge which is not commonly known even by those who are familiar with the man, such as that he meant to name GNU Hurd Alix and that he gave POSIX its name, something which would be obvious to anyone after clicking the first external link in this very article does not fit that.

Secondly think that the contents themselves are vague and just factually wrong, "often take a far-left perspective", most of what stallman puts in these action items have to do with human rights which I don't think anyone would call far-left. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:06, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

I think some of his sources have an anti-Bush bias. If that kind of topic doesn't belong in the article in any case, than that's true :) --Pakaran. 02:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It was mainly the 9/11 conspiracy theories I was thinking of. However, the fact that he updates his page daily is not that important in any case. I'm just back here because that addition is one of the things I significantly regret of what I've done on WP. Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the trivia, I believe sources should be cited for each claim made there, especially the most recent one. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:58, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
The Conlon Nancarrow pica is mentioned in this Bruce Sterling interview. There's already a reference for the Sussman paper. Another collaboration ("Heuristic techniques in computer-aided circuit analysis") is mentioned twice in Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. "St. IGNUcius" and POSIX are trivially Googleable. [1] [2] --chocolateboy 19:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I heard the trivia that was deleted (that rms never owned a computer) from rms himself at a conference he gave at the École Polytechnique in 2002. --Sam 20:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Stallman has a habit of referring to those who don't subscribe to his terminology as "ignorant."
  • Has developed a reputation of being something of a prima donna.
  • Stallman named the GNU HURD kernel "Alix" after his then- (and only) girlfriend.
OK, I do know Stallman is a bit touchy on the whole free software vs. open source software thing, and the GNU/Linux vs. Linux. But these trivia points seem like digs on him. The 1st two are obvious, the third I'm more concerned about the fact that "Alix" was his only girlfriend. Does anyone have any sources to back these up? (the 2nd point might be hard to find sources). Note that the first two (and subsequent others dealing with his hardline stance on terminology was all done by 65.168.18.72) --Bash 04:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Bash, Alix was most definitely not his only girlfriend. Hell, Free as in Freedom closes with the author and his wife having dinner with Stallman and his (starting 2001; current status unknown) girlfriend Sarah. --Maru (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

--

What the hell is going on here? 65.168.18.72 reposted the "prima donna" accusation again:

  • "Is widely regarded as something of a prima donna, especially when it comes to terminology. Stallman is on record as requiring interviewing journalists to use his particular terminology throughout their articles if they wish to interview him. As a result, many journalists refuse to interview him at all."

It's milder, but still an attack on Stallman. Moderate it a little at least. --Bash 19:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: Alright, I deleted the attack, but 65.168.18.72, two things
  1. Don't call him a prima donna. That's a personal attack.
  2. Please back up the statement that Stallman refuses to be interviewed unless his terminology is used throughout the interview. This sounds plausible, but I need sources to back it up. --Bash 19:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I used to work for the FSF - Stallman would in fact set pre-conditions such as using "GNU/Linux" and "free software" for interviews. That is completely true, at least as of 2001-2002. It was his way of getting people to use those terms, using the leverage of whether he would grant an interview or not. --Brianyoumans 05:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Last comments...

I must agree with a previous poster; the last few tidbits are a thinly veiled attack against the man. And note that the below statement

"At one point, Stallman named the GNU HURD kernel "Alix" after his then- (and only) girlfriend."

is wrong. Stallman has had more affairs since; this is a piece of knowledge I picked up from the semi-biographical book free as in freedom. http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/.

I think the statement should be:

"At one point, Stallman named the GNU kernel "Alix" after his then girlfriend although it was subsequently renamed to HURD by its main developer."

I noted that several of the statements whilst not false are worded in such a way as to present Stallman as a weirdo. For instance, the term "hacker" is widely used by the open source/free software community to mean something different than what non-experts think it means. Ok, finally look at this:

"For example, although virtually the entire world recognizes Linux distributions as "Linux" -- this is true; but it is also true that free software advocates call it GNU/Linux. One only has to check announcements by software companies to note that the term has become somewhat pervasive, at least in the hacker community and/or communities that promote the Free Software ethos."

Anyway, if anything, somebody should drop the "only" girlfriend claim. It is untrue and a cheap shot. I thought Wikipedia was aiming to be a great information resource rather than tabloid trash. I am not going to make the changes though; I do not presume to know what's best. But please consider the above few points.


Bias

"Has developed a reputation of being something of a prima donna"

This is not very polite and not very objective or encyclopedic in tone. Your views on his work/ideas should not lead to personal attacks. As far as I am aware he stays in people's homes rather than hotels whenever possible and is the perfect guest. Added Free software Free Society to books.


Richard Stallman and Wikipedia

Richard Stallman is the father of Free software. He wrote / developed the Gnu Public license, and later the GNU Free Documentation License. He did the pioneering work behind what everyone calls "Linux" but really ought to be called "GNU" (GNU's Not Unix). L. Torvalds supplied only a small part of the GNU/Linux operating system but has garnered the lion's share of the credit. This is not fair to Stallman. He also was first to propose a free, on-line encyclopedia. And Wikipedia owes him a double or triple debt:

  • Stallman's operating system provides the platform for MediaWiki
  • Stallman wrote the GPL license which fueled the development of MediaWiki
  • Stallman wrote / developed the documentation license that facilitated the voluntary creation of half a million articles at Wikipedia

I want to buy that man a beer - or at least a vegetarian dinner! ---- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:24, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


Richard Stallman and Rationalist International

rms: I am indeed an honorary associate (I don't recall what term they use, so I'll take this page's word for it) of Rationalists International. I also subscribe to the Skeptical Inquirer and was for a while a member of the New England Skeptics. I was asked to be listed, I felt honored to be asked to be in such company, and I said yes.

Someone (221.134.25.93) added to the recognition section: Honorary Associate of [http://www.rationalistinternational.net Rationalist International].
The RI site says that Stallman has "joined" RI. This is not believable, and there's no one claiming that RMS has joined RI, except RI. Stallman's not shy about his opinions, and he's particular about his associations. Without examining whether or not RI is philosophically compatible and meets the level of precision RMS demands of those around him, the lone fact that Stallman hasn't announced or confirmed this unusual unprecedented joining of a political association is grounds enough for this claim to be left here until it can be properly proven or disproven. --Gronky 02:16, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
PREJUDICED
The above statement is highly prejudiced and tries to deny the fact that Richard Stallman is an Honorary Associate of Rationalist International. Gronky can check it with RMS. Richard stallman's association with Rationalist International campaign can be seen in his personal web site www.stallman.org
The Honorary Associates of [http://www.rationalistinternational.net Rationalist International]are:

Dr. Pieter Admiraal (The Netherlands), Prof. Mike Archer (Australia), Katsuaki Asai (Japan), Sir Hermann Bondi (UK), Prof. Colin Blakemore (UK), Prof. Vern Bullough (USA), Dr. Bill Cooke (New Zealand), Dr. Helena Cronin (UK), Prof. Richard Dawkins (UK), Joseph Edamaruku (India), Jan Loeb Eisler (USA), Prof. Antony Flew (UK), Tom Flynn (USA), Jim Herrick (UK), Christopher Hitchens (USA), Ellen Johnson (USA), Prof. Paul Kurtz (USA), Lavanam (India), Dr. Richard Leakey (Kenya), Iain Middleton (New Zealand), Dr. Henry Morgentaler (Canada), Dr. Taslima Nasreen (Bangladesh), Steinar Nilsen (Norway), Prof. Jean-Claude Pecker (France), James Randi (USA), Prof. Ajoy Roy (Bangladesh), Dr. Younus Shaikh (Pakistan), Dr. G N Jyoti Shankar (deceased, USA), Barbara Smoker (UK), Richard Stallman (USA), Prof. Rob Tielman (The Netherlands), David Tribe (Australien), K Veeramani (India),Bary Williams (Australia), Prof. Richard Wiseman (UK) and Prof. Lewis Wolpert (UK) --Aparna

That page on Stallman's website says nothing about any association between him and Rationalist International, besides recommending people CC: somewhere on that domain when sending an email about an specific issue. As there is a worry that the link has been added solely to increase the site's PageRank, I have neutered the links here on the talk page, and removed it from the article. Please present concrete proof that Stallman has joined RI before adding the link back on the article. --cesarb 16:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This also introduces a question over the claim on the page about Taslima Nasrin that she is a member, plus any other references. I've been trying to get to the bottom of this, but I haven't yet found anything which would prove that Rationalist International is anything more than some guy with a website and newsletter, who says what he likes in each. Stallman's membership is not believable, I don't even want to take up his time by asking him. If the RI website contains false information (as seems to be in little doubt), the link to it from the Rationalism page should have a note beside it saying so. --Gronky 22:46, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)


Latest edit

Has anyone else noticed that the most recent edit by 128.30.16.48 introduced a comment "<!-- In any case, it is true. -- rms. -->"? Interesting, especially considering the IP address which resolves to aarau.csail.mit.edu. The edit looks okay to me, for what it's worth. --Rl 17:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If it is indeed him, it is quite shocking how much was incorrect about him in his bio article. --132.198.104.164 23:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
It's him. I emailed him to confirm. I'll post our email exchange online later tonight and put a link here. --[[User:Rl|Rl]


Founding GNU section

the line that starts: "By luck" doesn't really make much sense. I'm not sure of all the details, but I know that there was some work involved in making the kernel compatible with the GNU tools.


Java = C + Lisp?

The trivia section includes: "Stallman has done a little bit of programming in Java, but that code was written in C and Lisp." Is this a typo meant to say it was rewritten in C and Lisp, a cute joke about Java's similarity to C and Lisp, or some other possibility I'm missing?

D'oh, I just checked the Java link and get it now.
rms: Please do not rewrite this text in ways that change the meaning

or even the topic!


"Copying" subsection in "Terminology"

The following paragraph used to exist as a "Copying" subsection in the "Terminology" section:

Stallman asks that the term piracy be used only to describe boarding ships and stealing their cargo, not to unauthorized copying, he suggests instead that the term 'sharing information with one's neighbor'. Stallman and other critics of Digital Rights Management see it as a misnomer and refer to it instead as "Digital Restrictions Management". He refers to digital audio discs using Copy control and other similar technology that are designed to prevent copying as "corrupt discs" rather than Compact Disc to emphasis that they break the Red Book and recent discs are printed without the Compact Disc logo.

rms: That is entirely accurate, and I often say these things in my speeches. As for where in the page these things should be, it may not matter much to me.
I've merged most into the "Lesser terminology issues" sections for the following reasons:
  • I know Richard says copying shouldn't be called piracy, but I haven't heard him say what that word should be used for.
  • I think he sees "piracy" as a propaganda term, not a misnomer.
  • I've never heard him suggest that others refer to copying as "sharing information with one's neighbour"
  • This is not something he pounds on as hard as he does on "open source", "Linux", and "IP" --Gronky 00:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • RMS often describes the meaning of the term "piracy". I don't remember the exact words, but boarding ships and stealing their cargo is certainly close.
  • He also does refer to copying music, software, etc. as sharing information with one's neighbour. (he is not opposed to copyright law per se, but for shorter terms and different scope)
  • Copyright laws (and related legislation like the DMCA) seems to have become more important to him over time (as they have for many of us).
I recommend you read some of his newer stuff (and there should be a video of his Wikimania talk somewhere). --Rl 08:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
He explains the history of the word piracy, and says it shouldn't be used for copying information, but he doesn't tell people what it should be used for (only what it should not be used for). He says that sharing with one's neighbor should be legal, and therefore copying should be legal, but he doesn't say the two terms have the same meaning or that one should be used instead of the other.
Copyright reform (and prevention of deform) is important to him but the terminology section is for his major terminology issues. Until around 2000, they were "GNU/" and "free software". "IP" has since become a big thing for him. I haven't seen a recording of his Wikimania talk, but I've listened to probably every other audio recording of him available on the Net. --Gronky 10:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


new Criticism section

Someone added a criticism section, apparently based on a rant they found on some ESR site. Starts like this: "Stallman's zealous idiosyncrasies generally are a hit with the senior programmers in the open source community, but fare less well off broadway." — "Off broadway"? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. There's precious little criticism in the new section, it's mostly rather pointless trivia (that are covered in the Trivia section already) and making fun of him. I'm inclined to delete the whole section. Thoughts? --Rl 21:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend dumping the text here, moving the new, interesting, and useful bit of information (if any) into the other sections of the article, and then delete. There's a current dispute right now as to whether a section on the ESR page should be called "trivia" or "criticism". It's possible that this has sparked a "if ESR has to have a criticism section, so does Stallman" reaction. This happened before when someone was adding a section called "parodies" to the ESR article. --Gronky 00:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Note the warning at the top: "This may be longer than is preferable" Get it Gronky? No need to reproduce article text.
Is any of this worth factoring into the rest of the article? The first paragraph seems to be something Eric Raymond said back in the late 90s. There doesn't seem to be widely held criticism here (which would tell something about Stallman), instead it seems to be jabs that tell more about the person that said them.
That people not familiar with him find him eccentric is one thing that might be useful in the article, but on the other hand this is already strongly implied from the article which discusses his St. Ignucious role etc. That he doesn't talk to Torvalds is mildly interesting, except that it's not strictly true. They're not friends and they don't consult each other, but they have addressed eachother in emails. --Gronky 12:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment. --Rl 12:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Emails are now "talking". That's a fine distinction. I suggest you go to dictionary.com and submit your recommended change of the word "talk" to now include "email correspondence". Suggestion: Why don't you try to escape sometime from your delusional little minds.
Yes, talking. How often do you think Torvalds and Stallman come face to face? Email is the method of choice. --Maru (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Rather than spending time rationalizing their basis for wholesale deletion, why don't Gronky and RH just form a new club called "Programmers for Fascism"? If people don't agree that there is a place for critcism of Stallman, then their fascism club has a great charter and audience. Otherwise, read through the TALK section above including "Communism" to get an idea of how badly twisted and subjective their fascism is "indeed". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism
I'm deleting the criticism section again. The re-adding of it is being done by IP addresses and a spoof account "Qronky". This looks like a trolls work but reverting it still deserves an explanation: The above reasons for removing the criticism section still stand. The new paragraph about people turning against the GPL is simply not true. OpenBSD is against the GPL, and recently Eric S. Raymond has spoken out against it. That's all. They are a tiny part of the community and they are not growing. Also, GPL arguments should be the the GPL page. If asked, Stallman recommends the GPL but asking people to use it instead of other licenses is not one of his big campaigns. He sometimes recommends people use other (non-GNU) licenses, like he recommended that Ogg Vorbis should use the modified BSD license. The license is a means, not an end. --Gronky 20:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
And someone will keep putting it back, Gronky. Get your head out of your you-know-what. See http://sean.chittenden.org/ and plenty more criticisms that exist, including Business Week, if you take the time to look. They are just getting warmed up. Who are you, the frigging Wikipedia gatekeeper? Like I said: "fascist". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism
Don't worry. Wikipedia has procedures and features for dealing with revert wars and trolls. This isn't the first one to happen to this article. And like I said, this isn't even the first time this has happened while a similar thing was happening on the Eric Raymonds page.
A single rant by a blogger no-one and an unprovable a claim that Business Week had one criticism, once, does not amount to much. Even if the Business Week claim is true, one journalist still doesn't amount to much. We know from the SCO fiasco that the press can be fooled.
And as for talking to Linus Torvalds. Does every Wikipedia entry about a free software developer that doesn't talk with Linus (face to face) have to get a note on their page about it? No. Could this go in an existing section? Yes: trivia.
Create an account, sign your posts, and justify your edits. --Gronky 20:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
BTW, that anti-GPL rant page you linked to ends with a "KDE Now!" button. "D0n't u5e GPL'd s0ftware!!! Use a GPL'd desktop environment". Um, yeh. --Gronky 21:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Tough luck Gronky. You're ranting time expired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.93.94 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 August 2005
I support Gronky's position on this issue, especially in the light of the arguments made by those opposing him. Personal attacks are not a suitable replacement for coherent arguments. --Rl 07:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Just in case anyone isn't yet convinced that the person adding the "Criticism" section is a troll::

Re-adding the criticism section and renaming "Criticism" to "Trivia" on ESR's page are most of what this person does on Wikipedia. None of this means that there should or should not ever be a criticism section, but I recommend not wasting too much time trying to talk sense into this particular contributor. Just revert whenever you're passing by. --Gronky 14:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

If I may offer an outside view. There are fair criticisms that can (and have) been made about RMS. Jamie Zawinski, for example, has written extensively on why he thinks cooperation with RMS is impossible, particularly with respect to the XEmacs/Gnu Emacs split. Others have written in depth about his attempts to, in their opinion, distract from the dramatic failure of The Hurd and co-opt Linus's work by, essentially, publicly whining every time someone says "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux". While I respect the view that you don't want to give in to trolls, I think the right thing to do here is to add a well-written "criticism" section. The fact that the criticism section the trolls keep trying to insert is poor is not a reason to not have one at all; that is curring off your nose to spite your face. A proper "criticism" section will make this article better than either a troll version, or no such section at all. If people would like, I could take a crack at writing one. Thoughts? --Nandesuka 11:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead. No one is objecting to the idea of a criticisms section, only to that particularly badly written one. It might be even better to have full evaluation of Stallman spaced through the article rather than a separate criticism section. For example, there is already criticism of him embedded in the "Terminology" section. Doing this well would take significantly more effort than writing a decent "Criticism" section, and would probably need a fair amount of debate to get a suitable balance. Writing just the criticism section would be an excellent step forward. --gadfium 22:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I've finished a rough draft of the "Criticism" section. I went ahead and put it in place of the contested material. I tried to source all claims, and I left out a few things that I think are "fair" but which I couldn't find clear sources for. Please feel free to edit it as appropriate, or discuss the edits here. It might be the right thing to do to eventually disperse the criticisms throughout the article, as Gadfium suggests, but I agree that that is harder. At least this is, I hope, a start. --Nandesuka 03:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


Protected

I have protected this page to stop the ongoing edit war. So far, users Gronky and R1 have explained here on the talk page why the criticism section is not suitable for an encyclopedia, and a succession of anonymous editors and impersonators have reinserted the section without debating it rationally. A request for comment does not seem to have drawn more attention to the situation apart from my own involvement. Protection appears to be the only valid response at this point. -gadfium 09:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been involved with this article up until this point; I got here last night from the RfC. I believe the article needs a criticism section, as without it the article is hopelessly incomplete. That being said, I agree that the particular section being reinserted was somewhat weak (an entire paragraph on an obscure webcomic?) and something better can and should be created. I'll see if I can throw something together here that will be acceptable to both sides. --Nandesuka 11:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


I just wanted to add these links to the page


Criticisms of RMS

I'm not absolutely opposed to a criticism section, although I'm not sure it's appropriate. Most biography articles don't have one. For this article too, I think criticisms would be best worked into the main text of the article. For example, saying that some say his requests that the OS be called "GNU/Linux" are heavy handed should really be put in the section of the article that describes his reasons for that request. Then readers can make up their own mind. Having these related pieces of information in separate sections makes no sense, and not mentioning RMS's response to such accusations, when he has made some, leads to a biased section.

Most of the section is about the negative opinions by people that don't like him about his ability or style of work in teams. We could add that he's a very bad helicopter pilot, but he has never claimed to be a good helicopter pilot. His links to software development are closer than those to helicopters: he has started numerous projects, and has been the project leader of his projects, but he gave everyone the freedom to fork, so no one was legally bound to his team style. Also, note that has time has progressed, he has decreased the number of project-lead roles he has taken. This suggests that he has taken leadership when necessary, but has recognized that this is not is strength and so does so only when necessary.

About the XEmacs team comments currently in the new Criticism section:

  1. Yes, RMS is strict about complying with legal requirements. That the XEmacs team see this as over-burdensome is a comment on the legal environment, not on RMS. Linux was less strict, SCO threw a party.
  2. Emacs is heading for its 30th birthday, GCC has proved very maintainable, and RMS has other high class software under his belt. The comments of a declining software project on RMS's coding ability are rich.
  3. When one's opponent won't conceded, (s)he's "unwilling to compromise". When it's yourself, you're "doing the obvious sane thing". It's highly subjective, quoting only one side of such an argument is bad journalism.
  4. I don't see the importance of this one persons opinion of RMS's reasons for compromise.

As for Linus' comments, RMS never asked for "Linux in general" to be called GNU/Linux. RMS only asks that systems made by combining GNU+Linux be called "GNU/Linux". And as for someone's essay about the Meriam-Webster definition of "operating system", and then stripping this down to an academic interpretation - creating a pretty useless system, the likes of which as never been shipped by anyone as "an operating system" - this is not scientific.

Richard can be hard to work with, yes. He's not everyone's ideal project leader, yes. Some people have decided not to work in his teams, and some people have managed their projects differently as a response of not liking his style. But Wikipedians should be careful not to add content for content's sake. Maybe a section on misinterpretation and misrepresentation of his words, requests, actions, and suggestions would be more appropriate - maybe something could be added there about people attacking his methods as a way to undermine his message, like has happened to many pioneers of civil liberty causes. (Also, the GNU/Linux naming controversy already has its own page.) --Gronky 13:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to want the criticisms to be distributed throughout the article. But if you follow the talk page, above, the specific complaint was that the article really did not contain references to any of the well-documented criticisms that have been made of him. I didn't write this section because I hate RMS; I wrote it because criticism of RMS hasn't just been occasional and marginal, but constant and credible, from a variety of sources. That doesn't mean that the criticism is always true, or that we shouldn't present points of view that are laudatory of RMS. But an article about him that doesn't discuss (for example) Zawinski's very public, very detailed, and very specific critiques is incomplete. I am open to threading the criticism throughout the article rather than it having its own section, but like I said: getting the credible, sourced criticisms down in one place is a first step. It is not our place as editors to interpret the criticisms that other (credible) commentators have made, but to simply report them where they are relevant. (It is appropriate for us to present counterarguments that others, including RMS, have made. It's just not appropriate for us to make those arguments ourselves.)
We probably also need to work in some more discussion of the "Free Software" vs "Open Source Software" debate; right now, this article reads like an FSF position paper with respect to that issue. --Nandesuka 14:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Later (when the Wikipedia server recovers from whatever is making it so slow) I'll take a stab at integrating the criticism into the article. For one thing, the place for criticism of his software development projects would be a section on his software development projects. It only struck me now that it's strange that such a section doesn't already exist.
Regarding the "Free Software" vs "Open Source Software" debate, this page is Stallmanic on that topic because this is a page about Richard Stallman. The free software and open source software pages have their own takes on it. That Zawinski doesn't like RMS, and that XEmacs is a group of people that forked GNU Emacs with a different management style isn't disputed.
I'll try to stick the little content of the Speeches section into other sections too. Gronky 14:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I do not think WP should be a forum for character assassination. Enough of these exist. Give the guy a break. --Amnonc 11:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I should add to criticisms of RMS. A lot of them stem from his control of GNU projects. As you may not know, in order to become a GNU project, you must sign over copyright of your work to the Free Software Foundation, so RMS effectively gets control over it. That means he can deny changes to it. This is why forks like XEmacs became necessary. That wasn't the first nor the last.
There have been researchers who have made rather substantial modifications to gcc which were either severely delayed entry into or completely denied entry into the main repository for what amount to ideological reasons and procrastination. It was for this reason that gcc-xml was forced to fork. Certain patches for gcc relating to Java and C# were also denied on ideological grounds. ProPolice extensions were denied for a long time for some reason I'm not sure of. --Nathan J. Yoder 04:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Nathan - can you find any sources which discuss this issue in some detail? Preferably something non-XEmacs yet also significant. The more credible the source, the better. Perhaps a statement by the gcc-xml folks? --Nandesuka 12:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Stallman/Archive_2&oldid=390265108"