GNU is a political agenda. Developing software is just a means of advancing it.

The change here isn't that the organization is becoming political, it's that the organization's politics are becoming increasingly intersectional.

Realized it might be worth providing a concrete example. So here that is --

The GNU Manifesto has a whole section, "Why GNU will be compatible with Unix", that briefly explains why RMS chose Unix. In it, he fairly explicitly states that Unix is not his ideal software system, but it's a good choice for advancing GNU's political goals. In other words, the politics are considered at least as important as, and perhaps more important than, developing quality software.

In a couple of decades we will be back to public domain and shareware software models, while a couple of people will get some money selling books and conference talks about the golden age of FOSS.

It is bound to happen to any movement that outgrowns its grassroots, while those that achieve their positions thanks to the movement betray it.

It is becoming more and more dispiriting to see how FOSS is used to build massive empires of surveillance which gather oceans of private data with almost no oversight. And the strategy that has become well-established now is to build a 'product' using FOSS and then lock them up behind a bootloader or a key. Rampant proliferation of binary modules built on top of the Linux kernel are simply not addressed because of fear that it might drive away companies. But how is it fair to all the people that play by the rules and contribute code because Linux uses GPL ? The situation in routers is pretty much the same regarding binary modules, and locked down devices are becoming the norm now.

Most of the inquisitors would be using a proper UNIX hadn't been for him, see how far the BSDs have done and how much gets given to upstream.

Ah yes, because welcoming all regardless of irrelevant background details precludes quality software.

you don't seen to realize the irony that under the appearance of "being welcoming", those committees are only welcoming to whoever complies with their political agenda.

That is just another form of the tolerance paradox. And the conclusion of that would say, yes, only welcome people that are socially open minded people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I don't think that's it.

What is happening is a compliance test. You are only tolerated if you agree and comply with the woke politics of the day.

Calling "freedom to be yourself" a political idea is really sad and pathetic.

Your totally right, but then they write:

>safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender identity and expression....

So it's for all but not for you (RMS)... ;)

All minus one, apparently.

Yes, individuals who cause problems and generally abuse their colleagues should be excluded. <Insert identity selection here> should not be.

Amazing that you don't understand that GCC and Gnome are profoundly political organizations.

They were always political but now they're engaging in politics orthogonal to their stated goal.

How so? Surely you just mean politics the you don't agree with.

It is like code of conducts, prior people on both sides could work together. By picking a side on an issue that has nothing to do with a given project you alienate half of your potential developers. Nothing about developing an open-source compiler implies anything but developing an open-source compiler.

It already has gone down the path. One of the more notable advancements in the past decade or so is the increase in language tooling that isn't strictly related to compilation: improved static analysis tools, language servers, formatters, etc. These require high-quality ASTs to get correct, and for C/C++ especially, you need to have the AST backed by a codegen somewhere to know you got it correct. Yet GCC has resisted adding support for this, because of fears that it would make it easier to subvert the GPL, à la Dragonegg.