is such that certain crimes are so grave that they transcend the realm of due process and require summary execution.
The whole point of due process is to ensure that yes, this is indeed the guilty party to be punished. Historically, the witch hunt was one popular alternative.
The current maintainer has said he will apply the patches anyway so it's really a non issue. None of that seems to be mentioned in the summary at least.
That part IS mentioned in the summary
The Emacs maintainer has called the statements irrelevant and won't affect their decision to merge the LLDB support.
You can be sure Stallman is miffed. Publicly calling his input irrelevant on code he wrote is one step away from calling him irrelevant.
Whenever you relieve yourself of a responsibility by giving it to someone else, you accept that that person is not you and may not make the same decisions that you would make. If Stallman is to be blamed for anything, it should be in the form of Stallman blaming himself for choosing a maintainer who does not more closely share his views.
Now that persuasion has failed, I suppose he could fork it.
He's presenting and supporting a position that he holds. He's not flaming anybody, he is participating in a rational public debate about something that he helped to start, which seems entirely fair. He chose not to keep maintaining emacs day to day, and so that is his role; to say what he thinks the people running it now should do.
What you're doing, though, is just to flame him... for speaking his mind... while trying to accuse him of being against the speaking of minds.
It should be very easy to form a rational basis for views contrary to his. Unfortunately you abandon the attempt right at the start, and resort instead of a basket of logical fallacies. His views are at an extreme end, it shouldn't be hard at all to be both contrary and reasonable.
It seems like every time there is a discussion that remotely touches on the subject of freedom, someone in some form or another has to rehash this same discussion. The subject matter changes, the circumstances change, the exact pseudo-logic has a few variations, and it's articulated with varying degrees of skill, but at heart it's really the same discussion.
Excellent point, open and free but only in the way he sees freedom... We are talking about the man who is insisting to call Linux, GNU/Linux and likes to flame people for speaking up their minds, with different world visions...
So he tries to persuade people to agree with him, perhaps passionately, perhaps vehemently, maybe even not so nicely
If your opinion of the guy is correct, then his methods will cause fewer people to listen to him and he will thereby undermine his own efforts. This means such a situation would be self-correcting. I've never heard of RMS using force or threat of force to make you call it "GNU/Linux". The degree of power he has over you is determined entirely by how much you decide to listen to him*. The ability to recognize this is generally called perspective.
It's as though some people have an entitlement mentality, a manner in which they are self-centered. It leads to them feeling like they've been wronged or mistreated somehow when they discover that someone doesn't agree with them, won't support or otherwise validate them (probably the part that really bothers you), and speaks against them.
* I started to add "and use his software", but then I realized that's not true - you could use Emacs with the LLVM debugger
the school is teaching the kid that threats have consequences.
Credible threats have consequences. Threatening to magically make someone magically vanish lacks credibility.
and a pretty good lesson
"Good" lessons have a point to them. Teaching kids to fear imaginary threats does not.
There is one good lesson they're teaching this boy: those with authority are not to be trusted.
Lawrence Radiation Laboratory keeps all its data in an old gray trunk.
