Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman Acknowledges Libreboot Is No Longer A Part of GNU (gnu.org)
Libreboot became an official GNU project in May. Now an anonymous Slashdot reader writes:
Richard Stallman has officially announced that Libreboot is no longer a GNU package. The maintainer of Libreboot had tried to leave the GNU project in September 2016, but the departure was not acknowledged until January 2017. Libreboot is a replacement for proprietary BIOS systems, effectively a distribution of coreboot without any binary blobs and adding an automated build/install process.
In the post titled "Goodbye to GNU Libreboot," Stallman wrote that "When a package's maintainer steps down, that doesn't by itself break the relationship between GNU and the package. If it is left without a maintainer but is still useful, the GNU Project will usually look for new maintainers to work on it. However, we can instead drop ties with the package, if that seems the right thing to do.
"A few months ago, the maintainer of GNU Libreboot decided not to work on Libreboot for the GNU Project any more. That was her decision to make. She also asserted that Libreboot was no longer a GNU package -- something she could not unilaterally do. The GNU Project had to decide what to do in regard to Libreboot. We have decided to go along with the former GNU maintainer's wishes in this case, for a combination of reasons: (1) it had not been a GNU package for very long, (2) she was the developer who had originally made it a GNU package, and (3) there were no major developers who wanted to continue developing Libreboot under GNU auspices."
In the post titled "Goodbye to GNU Libreboot," Stallman wrote that "When a package's maintainer steps down, that doesn't by itself break the relationship between GNU and the package. If it is left without a maintainer but is still useful, the GNU Project will usually look for new maintainers to work on it. However, we can instead drop ties with the package, if that seems the right thing to do.
"A few months ago, the maintainer of GNU Libreboot decided not to work on Libreboot for the GNU Project any more. That was her decision to make. She also asserted that Libreboot was no longer a GNU package -- something she could not unilaterally do. The GNU Project had to decide what to do in regard to Libreboot. We have decided to go along with the former GNU maintainer's wishes in this case, for a combination of reasons: (1) it had not been a GNU package for very long, (2) she was the developer who had originally made it a GNU package, and (3) there were no major developers who wanted to continue developing Libreboot under GNU auspices."
https://libreboot.org/ -> points to https://notabug.org/vimuser/li... for the source code,...
Um - https://libreboot.org/
Also there is more information as to why libreboot left the GNU. From their site - 'Libreboot left GNU on 2016-09-15, in protest of transgender discrimination at the FSF'.
Update: It seems this is why Libreboot's maintainers were not pleased with GNU: https://libreboot.org/gnu/
Something about this summary struck me as strange.
It seems Leah created a project, joined with GNU, then decided to separate from the GNU, and Stallman is talking as if Leah can't go back to her original project. Is that normal? It seems borderline abusive to me.
"Oh, you want to leave? Well, I'm going to make sure I tell everyone publicly that you have my permission, because I am the one in power, and you are lucky that I am letting you go."
Leah's reason for the split was because of discrimination that occurred at Free Software Foundation, GNU's main funding source. I'm not very familiar with the situation, but at the very least, here are links for another side of the story:
https://libreboot.org/gnu/
https://libreboot.org/gnu-insu...
The Libreboot page is filled with shitloads of rancor concerning the GNU project and the FSF (which, by its victimized tone, I'm afraid to say doesn't make the maintainer's side of the story more trustworthy).
I can easily see why the FSF isn't sorry to see her go. They're probably cutting all ties with the project just to minimize the amount of further drama.
Read it and cringe:
- https://libreboot.org/why-not-...
- https://libreboot.org/gnu-insu...
She even talks about herself in the third person, even though it's obvious to everybody that she is the one writing it.
Here's what that Leah person has to say about "the sexist" RMS:
For instance, he once described women who have never used GNU Emacs as EMACS virgins. Leah is an emacs virgin. .vimrc is on vimuser.org.
Leah Rowe is a woman, and she recommends Vim. Her
Personal statement from Leah: RMS's comments about emacs virgins is especially offensive to me. Not only is it sexist in general (and directed at me, because I don't use emacs), but also offensive towards my sexuality. His statement implies that men are supposed to have sex with virgin women, and that women only lose their virginity to men. To this day, I've only ever been in lesbian relationships, although I am bi. I lost my virginity to a woman. I find it extremely insulting when someone assumes that I only like men, or that I'm generally interested in men. The woman that I lost my virginity to also happens to be a Vim user, and she is indeed an emacs virgin, like me.
https://libreboot.org/why-not-...
If that person's thinking was a piece of code I wouldn't even try to debug it.
lucm, indeed.
Stallman stated, that there was absolutely no reason concerning the gender/sexuality/sex/whatever but some internal reason he doesn't want to disclose to protect the innocent. There is a thread on the mailinglist.
It's hard to say without knowing the internals, but it looks a bit like someone was fired for $reasons and then tried to reframe it as discrimination.
And since fucking when did /. mod trolls up? This guy got up to +4 for God's sake... Can we get some mods in here?
He's not a troll. He put forth a reasoned argument for his position, complete with links. You didn't. Instead, you attacked him and assigned motives; you called his position "hating on LGBTs" but nowhere in his posts does he express any kind of hatred, nor is it even implied in his words.
This is one of the most annoying thing about today's SJW babies -- and one of the biggest reasons why society is finally fed up and not taking any more of it -- everything to them is about "hate." Anything they don't understand must be because of hate. People expressing opposing ideas or viewpoints are hateful. Must be so sad to live with such a disturbed worldview.
So, this dude is having a hissy-fit because some other dude wanted to pretend to be a girl, and somebody at FSF didn't play along?
No, that's not what happened, you should read some of the links provided.
A trans-gender employee of the FSF has been fired, no-one from the FSF is saying why, which is probably the sensible thing to do.
The person who has control of the Libreboot project has objected and seems to thing the fired former staff member was fired because of her gender.
Richard Stallman pointed out that the trans person was trans when they were hired, making the objector look bad.
I'm not calling transgendered people mentally ill.
Now, since being Transgender requires Gender Dysphoria -- so called Tumbrina "TransTrenders" aren't transgender, they're attention seeking children -- it's an unpopular, but correct, statement to say that they are people with a mental illness receiving treatment.
So...which is it?
Fortunately for me, an "unpopular" opinion is not bigotry, no matter what the authoritarian regressive post-modernists that have taken over the left in the west think.
Or it just means you're misinterpreting the disorder and blanket-applying it to all transgendered because you're now defending your bigoted views with semantic arguments.
From the DSM-5, used for diagnosis and classifications:
It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.
But do go on about your willingness to martyr yourself to the public court by posting unpopular opinions. Let's not let facts get in the way of your sacrifice.
"Gender Dysphoria" is not a mental illness. Unless being gay is a mental illness too, which I guess it is by your definition...
Wrong on both counts. It is classified as a mental illness so that insurance companies pay out on gender reassignment surgery, the same cannot be said for homosexuality. I'm afraid you can't just say "I want the money but without the negative connotation".
That is, ultimately, what this is about. They want Gender Dysphoria to be in some sort of weird quantum state of illness and identity, where they can pick either one based on what is most beneficial to them at any given time.
Want to pick and choose what treatment you get? Then it's identity, and you don't "need" dysphoria to have it.
Want to get a shared insurance fund to pay for your SRS and Transitioning? Then it's a mental illness and coverage is required by law.
It's a form of the Motte and Bailey post-modernist fallacy, the same one that brings us "crybullying" -- aka, "I'm so oppressed that I'm going to ruin your life for upsetting me."