I am writing as a free software developer in response to the Free Software Foundation's request to comment on cooperation with the GNU project, as posted here: The Free Software movement has always been one of principles over practicality: the FSF takes care to stress the moral implications of Free Software and as such positions itself as a role model for ethics in the software industry. I emphasize this because it is vital for such an organization to hold its members to the highest ethical standards. The FSF cannot claim to speak for the importance of ethics if its representatives are not themselves held to account for unethical behavior. In September 2019 I was happy to see Richard Stallman resign from his position as president of the Free Software Foundation in response to ethical concerns that had been raised about him by the public. The message this conveyed was clear: nobody in the Free Software movement can expect to escape from the consequences of their actions, and nobody is unaccountable. Even long-serving and founding members of the movement should be removed from their positions if they act unethically, and the movement is more important than any individual person, no matter the perceived importance of them or their contributions. However, I was disappointed to subsequently discover that Stallman remains leader of the GNU project and indeed, the GNU project does not appear to be under the control of or accountable to the FSF. This is despite the fact that the FSF owns the trademark for GNU (US trademark #85380218) and at the time of writing is the owner of the gnu.org domain (http://archive.is/uIJoN). If the FSF does not control GNU then it is unclear what governance mechanisms do exist within the GNU project to hold its leader(s) to account. The questions I would therefore ask the FSF leadership to consider are: * To whom is the leader of the GNU project accountable? What mechanisms exist to remove him from this position, if necessary? * If no such mechanisms exist, what steps might hypothetically be taken by the FSF to distance itself from the GNU project if it became necessary? Why are those steps not being taken now? * Why would the FSF seek to professionally engage with an organization without proper governance mechanisms? * What message does it convey to the public that Stallman is allowed to remain in a position of power? How does it reflect on the FSF and the Free Software movement in general that they continue to engage with him? Simon Howard