- In The GNU Project Stallman gives a longer and more complete (and partisan) account of the project and its history.
I have removed "partisan", as I cannot agree with it. As the founder and the leader of the GNU Project, Richard Stallman is most qualified to give the world an account of how it came to be. Moreover, I am not aware of anyone within the Project who finds that his account misrepresents facts.
I agree that:
- Stallman's account is opinionated, as everything he writes and says is.
- The GNU Project's take on Free Software may be seen as "partisan" by Open Source advocates, but that does not affect the accuracy or the validity of the account (in other words, the Project may be partisan, but this history is not).
FWIW (not to take a position on the above exchange, but supply a general principle), as people never tire of pointing out on the neutral point of view page, it is entirely possible to be fact-stating while being quite partisan. It seems to me that the recent edit-ors of the GNU page could stand to have a gander at neutral point of view. If you disagree with how something is presented (and a significant, well-informed number of people agree with you), then the way to proceed is to "go meta," by explicitly stating what the different competing views are. We will brook no "official views" here on Wikipedia. --LMS
As the guy who added "partisan", I'll humbly submit "personal" instead. I agree that "partisan" is a loaded term. Even though I personally like partisanship, people these days use it as a synonym for chauvinism. --The Cunctator
I find "personal" just right. Thank you for the cooperative attitude.
--- Can anyone add any facts concerning Stallman's strong arm tactics intended to coerce open source developers to license under GNU?
- I think it's more like Tux Boy trying to coerce RMS to change the GPL. (This is a partisan remark) Ed Poor