[lavabiopsy]

>You're just being intentionally obtuse.

Please avoid assuming bad faith, this is against the rules here, and it's pretty hostile to me and makes me not want to talk to you.

I don't see how that argument follows, as I have said, Richard Stallman does not develop GNU software, very rarely influences its development regardless of his position, and also one does not need to have any presence at the FSF to influence the development of GNU software. In general the FSF does not drive development of GNU software, the contributors do. And many GNU contributors are not involved with the FSF at all (similar to how many Linux contributors are not involved with the Linux Foundation).

[rcoveson]

> ...it's pretty hostile to me and makes me not want to talk to you.

Evidently not to a sufficient extent.

That the FSF and GNU are more closely connected to Linux than they are to Windows and macOS is self-evident. Roughly 100% of Linux users are extensive GNU software users. And Linux uses a license whose authorship and legal defense both fall under the purview of the FSF.

Would you argue that Richard Stallman, the founder of both the FSF and GNU and the author of both gcc and emacs, might not still do something to benefit the FSF and GNU software--and therefor all Linux users--in his remaining life?

[lavabiopsy]

>Evidently not to a sufficient extent.

Please avoid these snarky comments, this is also rude and unhelpful and against the rules. I'm continuing to talk to you as a show of good faith even though you're discouraging me from doing so, I ask that you please be respectful to me and maintain the same show of good faith. We can disagree and still respect each other.

>Roughly 100% of Linux users are extensive GNU software users.

If you meant just people using the Linux kernel, then this is very wrong. Android is the majority of users and does not really use any GNU software. If you meant people using Linux on a desktop or server, then it's still probably not 100%, there are various non-GNU distros. Also this is really not related to the FSF/GNU relationship at all so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

>And Linux uses a license whose authorship and legal defense both fall under the purview of the FSF.

This is also false, the defense of the license of Linux falls to the authors of Linux. The FSF has no bearing on their actions, they can attempt to influence them but it carries no more weight than any other outside group. For some obvious examples: the FSF asked them to switch to the GPL3 but they declined. People have asked them to follow the FSF's interpretation of the GPL, but they declined. In any case I think you may be confused as to what the FSF actually is.

>Would you argue that Richard Stallman, the founder of both the FSF and GNU and the author of both gcc and emacs, might not still do something to benefit the FSF and GNU software--and therefor all Linux users--in his remaining life?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this question. Many people could theoretically do or not do things at some point in the future to benefit any given piece of software, so any answer would be purely speculative. Also, enhancements to any given GNU software do not benefit all Linux users. There are a large number of GNU packages that aren't popular at all and aren't even available on some Linux distros. Also, Richard Stallman is not the sole author of gcc and emacs, and AFAIK has not contributed code to either of those projects in many years.

[rcoveson]

> I'm sorry, I don't understand this question. Many people could theoretically do or not do things at some point in the future to benefit any given piece of software, so any answer would be purely speculative.

It is no longer possible to assume good faith. Goodbye!