body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"GNU Zealousy"[edit]

Doesn´t it belong in here somewhere, the phrase "GNU Zealousy". It was very commonly used around 2000, and to describe "GNU Zealots" and their abusive behaviour. (very known). RMS has later had opinions pro-pedophilia! GNU could indeed be a pro-pedophilia statement. 84.215.119.50 (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jobs anecdote[edit]

When verifying this paragraph:

In 1993, while Jobs was at NeXT, Jobs asked Stallman if he could distribute a modified GCC in two parts, one part under GPL and the other part, an Objective-C preprocessor under a proprietary license. Stallman initially thought this would be legal, but since he also thought it would be "very undesirable for free software", he asked a lawyer for advice. The response he got was that judges would consider such schemes to be "subterfuges" and would be very harsh toward them, and a judge would ask whether it was "really" one program, rather than how the parts were labeled. Therefore, Stallman sent a message back to Jobs which said they believed Jobs' plan was not allowed by the GPL, which resulted in NeXT releasing the Objective-C front end under GPL.

using the cited source I was surprised to find that the source was primary: Stallman bringing up this anecdote himself in an email. We shouldn't use a primary source for such a big self-serving claim. In addition, the date is wrong, the email is from 1993, but the email itself mentions "a long time ago" in 1993, so the anecdote must be well before 1993. Overall, I would suggest to remove the anecdote entirely unless it is covered in reliable secondary sources. I've made a small edit to address the biggest issues. AncientWalrus (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The paragraph has been like this for at least 8 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Stallman&diff=prev&oldid=625815748. Anecdote inserted 9 years ago here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Stallman&diff=prev&oldid=625688744 AncientWalrus (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]