> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 5:40 AM > From: "Ville Voutilainen" <ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> > To: "Christopher Dimech" <dim...@gmx.com> > Cc: "Jason Merrill" <ja...@redhat.com>, "GCC Development" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 at 20:31, Christopher Dimech <dim...@gmx.com> wrote: > > I do not see people really intending to fork. It explains why detractors > > have gone berserk. > > I appreciate your colorful exaggerations, but I should point out that > the libstdc++ > maintainer has stated his intention to fork, in unambigous terms. A helper > elf of his has stated that he will follow the fork, if it occurs. I'm > politely entertaining > the possibility that you missed that, but Mr. Wakely is not joking > when he indicates > that he wishes to do a non-FSF fork of lbistdc++.
Talk facts not rhetoric. What I have seen is people trying to resolve the problem without resorting to an actual complete fork. For this to happen, people would have to agree on things they would not be completely satisfied about. If the fork is presented as a threat, things are not going to work well. I am not complaining about a decision, whatever that is. But parading nuclear missiles means nothing - that I should know.
