What a waste of fucking time.
Free as in freedom, not beer. Its his project, he makes the decisions.
Don’t like the joke? Fork it, remove your offenses and make a new project.
1 Like
This brings back memories of my first slackware install on a 486, when you actually had to read the man pages instead of watching a youtube video to learn stuff 
Thank you
I’m just waiting until someone finds the worse joke. The man pages are big.
And no I’m not going to share it here. Can’t spoil everything. 
I normally ignore stallman completely, as well as manpages. This is why I emphasize on users writing their own versions of documentation in order to replace crap like this. I have held this opinion since 2012 when he did this the last time.
Not dealing with that shit.
No, he wrote a joke about government censorship, not abortion.
No, he didn’t exercise censorship, he vetoed others censoring a joke he wrote in the documentation of a project that he himself started and leads.
The GPL isn’t free, more news at 11.
If you want freedom, use BSD licensed code.
1 Like
It’s funny, everyone is calling it censorship. They removed it because it wasn’t relevant. Maybe the new generation cares more about technical precision than political satire. That doesn’t seem like censorship to me. Sounds like Stallman and company are borrowing from certain U.S. political movements: Scream racist/nazi/bigot/liberal at everything you disagree with.
Sad that this is what it’s come to.
Preach brother, preach!
1 Like
Do you need a safe space? 
Eh…
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MAINTAINERS
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Contributors.html#Contributors
He made one contribution. He’s not on the list of maintainers. He’s an ego maniac that doesn’t understand modern software.
? Not sure what you’re implying. If anything, yet again, the FSF and RMS need to be coddled and told they’re still relevant.
… But you were the one calling all this censorship. Correct me if i’m wrong i’m not sure he referred to it as such. Within this topic, you referred to it as censorship and we are replying in that context.
2 Likes
Removing the “abortion joke” is not censorship. Stallman and his defenders were calling it censorship. So, in defense of censorship, Stallman stepped in and rejected a decision made by active maintainers of the project and demanded they reverse it. Actively stepping on the actions of others.
1 Like
Stallman is a fucking idiot, this just proves it, again.
And it was reversed in accordance to the guidelines they have because the original commit had not been generally accepted.
Thanks for the link. You’ll go out and find this stuff which has me confused at why you ignore things you seem to not want to accept? The same mailing list discusses why it was reversed and that it was done within the guidelines, stallmans own page details what he thinks on government etc. yet you claim hes a marxist when clearly it just doesn’t line up with those views. I cant help but feel your great dislike for the guy is letting you pick and choose what you want to believe about him to keep your view of him intact. you can dislike the guy and he can still not be a marxist for example.
2 Likes
“I exercise my authority over glibc very rarely – and when I have done so, I have talked with the official maintainers,” he explained. “So rarely that some of you thought that you are entirely autonomous. But that is not the case. On this particular question, I made a decision long ago and stated it where all of you could see it.”
On Monday, the joke was restored by project contributor Alexandre Oliva, having taken Stallman’s demand as approval to do so.
Thank god.
Faith in Stallmanity restored.
GNU has always been political, so changing up wording because it offends someone just proves his point.
I dunno, sounds like the maintainers got butthurt about it, or considered it “obscene, politically unacceptable…” and then they tried to suppress it by changing it to something that wouldn’t “trigger” (the word that the Redhat guy in the article used) them. Therefore, they tried to censor it. Stallman then used his authority to undo the censorship. As long as there are differing opinions about how things should be done, someone will ALWAYS be stepping on the actions (or thoughts) of others. Since Stallman didn’t initiate this, so in this case he is not the one doing the censoring.
3 Likes
Okay, scratch Marxist, how about Far Left Extremist? That site reads like a Bernie Sanders wet dream.
The original intent was because it offered nothing technical to the documentation.
Please, keep quoting the definition of censorship. It’s really hitting home the point here 
Stallman cried wolf first, dude is a joke and a washed up hack. He was upset that something he wrote in the 90s was removed, something he probably thought long and hard about, writing draft after draft in his dear diary notebook, and finally publishing it in a political/technical/global/revolution manuscript.
Find me an interview where he isn’t a pompous, arrogant prick. Find me a time where he steps back and respects a contribution from RedHat or Canonical. Find me something, anywhere, from any time, where he isn’t talking about how things used to be and how the evul corporations are killing software.
I’m very receptive, the problem is I don’t think the content exists. He constantly shits on good companies and good software because it doesn’t fit the bill for his self proclaimed philosophy.
The level of ad hominem here leads me to believe that you’re only upset about this because you and your blue-haired friends had nothing else to be offended about today.
1 Like
Meanwhile, in Texas, your blanket assumption just don’t math right, friend.
Keep crying SJW.
Doesn’t matter whether it offered nothing technical or not. They were still trying to remove it because they got offended about it.
Good. Just making sure 
.
He didn’t cry wolf. Crying wolf is like raising a false alarm. Since they were actually trying to change the code, it’s not a false alarm.
“Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or “inconvenient” as determined by government authorities or by community consensus.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
Yes, removing that joke was in fact censorship. Vetoing censorship however is not.
1 Like
free·dom
ˈfrēdəm/
noun
noun: freedom
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
free·dom
ˈfrēdəm/
noun
noun: freedom
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
free·dom
ˈfrēdəm/
noun
noun: freedom
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
Mods, feel free to close this.
1 Like
Not poking fun at you, just sad the fun is ending.