Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> skribis:
So have we really arrived at the point where to move Free Software
forward we have to break with the FSF? Has the name GNU become so
toxic because of the myth of the GNU GNUisance that we will have to
make clear we are GNU but without the FSF?
I think so. Fellow free software hackers and activists view it this
way, with very concrete implications: Guix can’t use its money held at
the FSF to pay Outreachy internships, the open letter authors
“inadvertently” called to stop contributing to GNU, and so on.
That’s why I think we must publish a statement to prove that we exist
and that GNU is not a homogeneous group following its one true leader.
I was hoping to give the FSF another week to clarify which direction
they want to go. As far as I understand the board will meet again this
week and make another statement. Although I admit some of the recent
statements from the FSF haven't been very encouraging.
Some of the recent statements, but also everything that’s happened since
2019 when we were hopeful, starting from the
operation that, in hindsight,
looks like a trick to silence dissent.
If we do break off then I hope we will keep using GNU as much as
possible, but start building out resources provided under gnu.tools,
but always with an eye towards one day merging again with those GNU
projects that want to stay behind. As a first step I think we should
find a different fiscal sponsor that can help us setup a new
governance structure and navigate all those foundational issues. I am
not sure we should do this as GNU Assembly, or encourage each
individual project to do this separately.
To me, fiscal sponsorship is unrelated to governance.
But I agree it’s also an important issue for those of us involved:
toolchain, Guix, and probably Mailman, Octave, and MediaGoblin:
In Guix we’re still discussing what to do, but I think we should discuss
this among all these projects at some point.