Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Sunday March 28 2021, @05:23AM   Printer-friendly

Red Hat pulls Free Software Foundation funding over Richard Stallman's return:

The chorus of disapproval over Richard M Stallman, founder and former president of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), rejoining the organisation has intensified as Linux giant Red Hat confirmed it was pulling funding.

Stallman announced he had returned to the FSF's Board of Directors last weekend – news that has not gone down well with all in the community and Red Hat is the latest to register its dismay.

CTO Chris Wright tweeted overnight: "I am really outraged by FSF's decision to reinstate RMS. At a moment in time where diversity and inclusion awareness is growing, this is a step backwards."

Describing itself as "appalled" at the return of Stallman to the FSF board of directors "considering the circumstances of Richard Stallman's original resignation in 2019," Red Hat said it decided to act.

"We are immediately suspending all Red Hat funding of the FSF and any FSF-hosted events. In addition, many Red Hat contributors have told us they no longer plan to participate in FSF-led or backed events, and we stand behind them," said Red Hat.

[...] Red Hat's step marks an escalation in the war of words over Stallman's return. As both a long-time donor and contributor of code, the IBM-owned company's action might well give the FSF pause for thought in a way that thousands of outraged tweets might not.

FSF president Geoffrey Knauth stated his intention yesterday "to resign as an FSF officer, director, and voting member as soon as there is a clear path for new leadership."

Red Hat statement about Richard Stallman's return to the Free Software Foundation board

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @02:24PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @02:24PM (#1131206)
    Actually, when the scumbaggery reaches the level of grooming, it IS rape. Gisele Maxwell might disagree, but she went into hiding under a fake identity because the FBI disagrees with her enabling activities. Prince Andrew (aka Randy Andy) is also sweating bullets.
  • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Sunday April 04 2021, @09:15PM

    by fakefuck39 (6620) on Sunday April 04 2021, @09:15PM (#1133243)

    Since we're talking about a 17yo in this thread, which is what my comments are talking about, no sherlock, it's not rape, even by your definition. because it's not grooming either. so let me see your mental gymnastics here: it's rape because grooming is rape. the grooming is taking place to get a girl to fuck you when she is old enough.

    problem here sherlock, is she's been old enough to fuck for 2 years in her home country, has been fucking and partying for 2 years in her home country, and has already been legal to fuck for a year in most of the states here too. you can't groom someone who is already old enough for you to fuck. that's called lying and manipulating a consenting adults - like you telling some bitch at a club you're rich so you can rail her in the bathroom. something both men and women actively do at all ages, teens included, half of their mating cycle.

    but let's face it - that's not what this is all about. it's personal. you're too ugly, too fat, and too old, to fuck an attractive 17yo. or 21yo. or even someone your own age. so let's call everyone who doesn't have your problem a rapist. winning!