Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Richard Stallman Acknowledges Libreboot Is No Longer A Part of GNU (gnu.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the seven-months-goes-by-fast dept.

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case, for a combination of reasons: (1) it had not been a GNU package for very long, (2) she was the developer who had originally made it a GNU package, and (3) there were no major developers who wanted to continue developing Libreboot under GNU auspices."

6 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. Melodrama by dinfinity · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Melodrama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      To be far, the FSF did issue a public statement: https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement

      Although it is our usual policy not to comment publicly on internal personnel matters for privacy reasons, we felt it necessary to state unequivocally that the allegations made in that email are untrue.

      I doubt there are more than a handful of people on Slashdot (since we know FSF folks do hang out here) who know the actual truth of the matter. Given that, this is purely a he/she/xe said situation.

      For me, I'm taking the accuser's story it with a grain of salt.

  2. wat by lucm · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    Leah Rowe is a woman, and she recommends Vim. Her .vimrc is on vimuser.org.
    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.
    1. Re:wat by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Informative

      His statement implies that men are supposed to have sex with virgin women, and that women only lose their virginity to men.

      Where? Where does he ever say that in the one line he stated? He doesn't ever mention a gender.

      Additionally the dictionary has multiple definitions of Virgin.

      1. a person who has never had sexual intercourse.

      2. an unmarried girl or woman.

      3. Ecclesiastical. an unmarried, religious woman, especially a saint.

      4. the Virgin, Mary, the mother of Christ.

      5. Informal. any person who is uninitiated, uninformed, or the like:
      He's still a virgin as far as hard work is concerned.

      6. a female animal that has never copulated.

      7. an unfertilized insect.

      8. (initial capital letter) Astronomy, Astrology. the constellation or sign of Virgo.

      Adjective:

      9. being a virgin:
      a virgin martyr.

      10. of, relating to, or characteristic of a virgin:
      virgin modesty.

      11. pure; unsullied; undefiled:
      virgin snow.

      12. first:
      the senator's virgin speech.
      13. without admixture, alloy, or modification:
      virgin gold.

      14. not previously exploited, cultivated, tapped, or used:
      virgin timberlands; virgin wool.

      15. without experience of; not previously exposed to:
      a mind virgin to such sorrows.

      16. Informal. being a mixed drink resembling a specific cocktail but made without any alcoholic ingredient:
      a virgin piña colada.

      17. Zoology. not fertilized.

      18. (of a metal) made directly from ore by smelting, rather than from scrap.

      19. noting the oil obtained, as from olives, by the first pressing without the application of heat.

  3. Re:How to get it in future? Where is it lodged? by allo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:You don't know how hormones work, do you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.