FSF Management Team Resigns, as FSF Now Seeks 'Improved Transparency' (arstechnica.com) 308
Richard Stallman's name has now been taken off the official web page of the steering committee for GCC, reports IT Wire.
But they also note new changes this week in the management team of the Free Software Foundation: A statement from [FSF executive director John] Sullivan, deputy director John Hsieh, and chief technology officer Ruben Rodriguez on 30 March said: "As members of FSF management, we have decided to resign, with specific end dates to be determined. We believe in the importance of the FSF's mission and feel a new team will be better placed to implement recent changes in governance..." The resignations come in the wake of FSF founder Richard Stallman announcing on 19 March, during the organisation's annual LibrePlanet conference this year that he was rejoining the board.
"Some of our colleagues in the FSF have decided to resign," reads an official response from the FSF. "We are grateful for the good work they have done for so long, and we will miss them. We regret losing them; we regret the situation that has motivated them to leave."
Another FSF board member also resigned last week.
Meanwhile, Ars Technica reports the FSF has created a new seat on the board to be filled by someone from FSF union staff, with acting FSF President Geoffrey Knauth calling it "an important step in the FSF's effort to recognize and support new leadership, to connect that leadership to the community, to improve transparency and accountability, and to build trust. There is still considerable work to be done, and that work will continue."
Ars Technica adds: The elephant in the room that the FSF's remaining board members seem determined to ignore is the continued presence of Stallman himself — who, along with the rest of the FSF board, will soon need to undergo its new "transparent, formal process for identifying [members] who are wise, capable, and committed to the FSF's mission."
But they also note new changes this week in the management team of the Free Software Foundation: A statement from [FSF executive director John] Sullivan, deputy director John Hsieh, and chief technology officer Ruben Rodriguez on 30 March said: "As members of FSF management, we have decided to resign, with specific end dates to be determined. We believe in the importance of the FSF's mission and feel a new team will be better placed to implement recent changes in governance..." The resignations come in the wake of FSF founder Richard Stallman announcing on 19 March, during the organisation's annual LibrePlanet conference this year that he was rejoining the board.
"Some of our colleagues in the FSF have decided to resign," reads an official response from the FSF. "We are grateful for the good work they have done for so long, and we will miss them. We regret losing them; we regret the situation that has motivated them to leave."
Another FSF board member also resigned last week.
Meanwhile, Ars Technica reports the FSF has created a new seat on the board to be filled by someone from FSF union staff, with acting FSF President Geoffrey Knauth calling it "an important step in the FSF's effort to recognize and support new leadership, to connect that leadership to the community, to improve transparency and accountability, and to build trust. There is still considerable work to be done, and that work will continue."
Ars Technica adds: The elephant in the room that the FSF's remaining board members seem determined to ignore is the continued presence of Stallman himself — who, along with the rest of the FSF board, will soon need to undergo its new "transparent, formal process for identifying [members] who are wise, capable, and committed to the FSF's mission."
The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:4, Insightful)
The FSF is really just RMS's personal pet organization at this point. Donors and board members are abandoning in droves because the FSF obviously lacks any sort of critical thinking when it comes to decision-making.
It's over. Time to move on and support other organizations that promote Free Software but know how to pick spokespeople who behave professionally.
Re: (Score:2)
2021, the year FOSS got a black eye.
Re: (Score:3)
That was the other eye.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:4, Funny)
What has Stallman done of value in this century?
His contributions towards getting woke panties in a twist are legendary. Does that qualify?
Re: The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:5, Funny)
WHOA!!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
This is worse than systemd!
Hey hey hey.... let's not go crazy now.
Re:The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah maybe. I guess the two things the FSF does that are important are the GNU project, and maintaining the GPL, LGPL, and GFDL. They're not effective advocates anymore - RMS presence alone has killed their respect in the industry, so the FSF would not be good to advocate even for something everyone already agreed with, let alone FOSS against the forces of proprietary vendors.
I think probably at this point the GNU project should break off and become an unrelated separate entity, and an alternative functional-equivalent to the GPL license should be developed and administered by a more-respectable foundation.
Re:The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Name a person more respectable than rms? He's an unyielding zealot of software freedom, and without him I fear about GPL4 being about short-term gain of IBM (Red Hat) stockholders rather than keeping software open for all -- and not just whoever a current cult decides to be "ethical".
Re: (Score:2)
Would you ever have thought one day, back when you created your slashdot accounts, you would be DEFENDING richard stallman?
-dk
Re:The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes he did those things and he pushed forward the concept of free software.
Those are good things. He is also 68 years old an asshole to work with. No longer actively codes(and hasn't in over twenty years) refuses to use anything but c and assembly.
After a while you have to phase out the stuff that isn't working, Needs updating, or is just plain unmanageable or unmaintainable any more.
Put it this way. Richard Stallman is Dos while everyone else is working with gui's sure it has a point but it is massively limiting itself
Re: The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS did not start free software movement (Score:5, Insightful)
He started this free software movement.
No he did not. He attached a brand name to the things many of us were already doing, and had been doing for years. Namely sharing source code, posting it online so others could review and help, etc. We had communities, we helped each other, before the FSF.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
> No amount of coding or creating things makes someone suitable to serve as a director or executive - those past contributions simply have nothing to do with the job duties of a director or manager.
And further up in the commentary, somebody charged RMS as being useless because he didn't write code anymore. The RMS-haters are really going to get him either way, aren't they?
> RMS is not suitable to be the director or executive of a foundation like this one if he offends "woke" people.
"An X-affiliation p
Re: The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:3)
By the way, the number 1 requirement for someone to be suitable as an executive is that their character and conduct are beyond reproach
*bwaaahahaha* Tell me again about the last dozen or so US presidents (including, but not limited to, Orange Man), about 90% of fortune 500 CEOs including Bezos, Zuckerberg, Jobs, Gates, ... and just about any leadership figure of the recent past and present, with very few notable exceptions. I'm nit saying that it's good, only that it's reality.
But somehow it's RMS where you draw the line?
Uhm hum. Got it. NOT.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize licenses are things that a group voluntarily accepts. That's why the Linux kernel isn't on the latest and the greatest. They couldn't get everyone on the same page. So by what mechanism do you suddenly see open source being seized in a mass epidemic of agreeing with each other on GPL4 (let alone any other license)? In other words your fear has no foundation to it.
Re: (Score:2)
So by what mechanism do you suddenly see open source being seized in a mass epidemic of agreeing with each other on GPL4 (let alone any other license)?
By this [spdx.org], this [spdx.org], or this [spdx.org] mechanism.
Re: (Score:2)
Still voluntary, and require consensus.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine there might be some consensus that anyone using GPL v.X+ want to change to omitting the hyphenated bit all right. That was always a spectacularly bad idea. Sensible people always opted for the no-backdoor option.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is you can't invite RMS to your company or conference to give an advocacy speech.
Re:The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:5, Informative)
Name a person more respectable than rms
Bradley Kuhn and John Sullivan, to name just two. Equally dedicated to Free Software, yet capable of behaving like professionals.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Name a person more respectable than rms?
You mean specifically for advocating free software or in general? Because if you're talking in general then let me get the phonebook and start at A. And that's a bit of the problem. RMS is a great free software advocate but through his ideas alone. If you can keep him locked in a basement and filter his ideas through someone who actually is good at PR then hey may not just be an advocate for free software, he may actually be a good one and the organisation would have more respect as a result.
You can say wha
Re:The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:5, Funny)
Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond.
Re:The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:5, Interesting)
RMS presence alone has killed their respect in the industry, so the FSF would not be good to advocate even for something everyone already agreed with,
This is almost 100% the statement of why the FSF matters. Unlike the OSI, the FSF is not there to advocate for the industry. The FSF is there to advocate for the users of software. Their aim is to ensure that all the people in the world have maximum freedom to do what they want with software. The OSI aim is to ensure that some specific developers have maximum freedom to develop software. These are not compatible aims and we see with Facebook's control over recent elections, Google's control over people's information and all big tech's joint domination of markets why this difference is so important.
Really wish I understood in detail what the actual views and actions were which are the basis for this, which is kind of clear as mud to me. However, when you look at the list of enemies that the Stallman seems to have here - Google / Microsoft / IBM (RedHat) etc. It reads like a pantomime villain list of the enemies of freedom. If you judge people by the enemies they make then RMS is a great man and the people he is pushing away are exactly the people that need to be kept away from control over software freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a matter of "enemies". It's simply the case that at this point, RMS is detrimental to the goals of the FSF. There's a pretty good summary here [arp242.net].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most of that is a long, vaguely alleged ad hominem.
Shame on you.
Re:The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:4, Informative)
An ad hominem what? Yes, it is "ad hominem" critique of Stallman's person, in that it explains why Stallman is not a good choice to lead (or help lead) the FSF -- but that's the entire point of this debate. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, but that is saying an argument is wrong because the person making the argument is bad for some reason, and the linked blog post never does that. All the behaviors mentioned there are well-documented, so if you aren't familiar with them, please use your favorite search engine to learn about them.
Complaining that the linked post is an "ad hominem" is vapid to the extent it's true, and false to the extent that it might be a meaningful complaint. So shame on you.
Re:The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike the OSI, the FSF is not there to advocate for the industry. The FSF is there to advocate for the users of software.
You do understand that advocating for software users means by definition advocating to the people controlling the software, right? And that includes the software industry.
I really don't care to argue the merits of the underlying "why he was forced to resign" because the bottom line is that the FSF has been absolutely terrible at their core mission. Sure, they produced the GPL - but the current most popular GPL is the GPL v2.1, which dates to 1999. Since then, they tried to update the GPL with the GPLv3 and that went over horribly.
I went to Wikipedia to find out what they've done since the GPLv3 and the answer is pretty much nothing. The article seriously jumps from 2009 to 2019 when Stallman resigned. Their current work appears to be maintaining a list of "high priority projects" but a list of important things is kind of meaningless if it doesn't drive people to actually work on those things, which is doesn't appear to have done.
The thing is, Stallman and the FSF have kind of been a joke for decades at this point. Pretty much everyone who knows what they are also knows that they don't really accomplish much of anything and that Stallman is kind of weird. It's not really news. It's been time for Stallman to stand aside and let someone else run things for years. (Although, of course, it's also worth pointing out that the FSF didn't really accomplish anything without him, either. You may be able to blame some of that on the pandemic, I guess?)
If you judge people by the enemies they make then RMS is a great man and the people he is pushing away are exactly the people that need to be kept away from control over software freedom.
That's a really bad way to judge people, you know. There are plenty of times when bad people pissed off other bad people. That doesn't make them good.
If you're pushing away people who are mostly ambivalent about software freedom (and there's plenty of evidence Stallman does) even though they may not be "enemies" they're not sticking around long enough to become allies.
Re:The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike the OSI, the FSF is not there to advocate for the industry. The FSF is there to advocate for the users of software.
You do understand that advocating for software users means by definition advocating to the people controlling the software, right? And that includes the software industry.
I think that there are very specific groups, such as Microsoft and Google, where there is absolutely no point in doing advocacy. They probably already, in some senses, understand FOSS better than the people at the Free Software Foundation, including RMS. Their entire business is in shaping and mediating people's freedom so that they can insert toll gates on the road towards it.
The software industry that the free software movement needs to advocate to are a) general small startups through to medium sized software companies without a fully independent eco-system that really benefit from the whole ecosystem that FOSS has provided and b) big companies that are actually primarily users of software and secondarily developers of software simply because they have to be to achieve their business. These are the people that benefit specifically from the freedom which RMS has provided through the GPL, for example. They are also the people that Microsoft specifically targets to trap into systems that take away their freedom.
The thing is, Stallman and the FSF have kind of been a joke for decades at this point. Pretty much everyone who knows what they are also knows that they don't really accomplish much of anything and that Stallman is kind of weird. It's not really news. It's been time for Stallman to stand aside and let someone else run things for years. (Although, of course, it's also worth pointing out that the FSF didn't really accomplish anything without him, either. You may be able to blame some of that on the pandemic, I guess?)
If you judge people by the enemies they make then RMS is a great man and the people he is pushing away are exactly the people that need to be kept away from control over software freedom.
That's a really bad way to judge people, you know. There are plenty of times when bad people pissed off other bad people. That doesn't make them good.
If you're pushing away people who are mostly ambivalent about software freedom (and there's plenty of evidence Stallman does) even though they may not be "enemies" they're not sticking around long enough to become allies.
I don't really see even that as Stallman's role. He's rather the nagging little voice of conscience which warns us that some of these developer agreements we are signing are giving away our user's freedom. His key job is preaching to the already converted in areas where they would otherwise fall down the slippery slope of compromise. Very specifically with Tivoiosation, he carried out campaigns that were directly, short term, detrimental to the cause of FOSS but which, now seem very prescient. His campaigns against the cloud - fundamentally tilting against windmills - also seem incredibly important in the days when we learn how some of the cloud companies have been using their power to kill competitors before they have even had a chance to grow and prove themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
The GPL doesn't require any "maintenance" though, and the GNU project is just some server resources for a couple old software projects.
New projects in the free software world get sponsored elsewhere, like the Linux Foundation. And the Apache 2 License is winning in the marketplace of ideas.
FSF will simply shut down now, due to lack of funding, and the projects will get upgraded resources elsewhere.
Re:The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS has not "killed respect". A witch hunt was launched on a deeply and profoundly questionable basis and its proponents do not appear to be interested in listening to even the least bit of reason. It is the frothing members of the witch hunt that are "problematic". We simply have news outlet after news outlet that unquestioningly repeats the same empty allegations (with greater or lesser amounts of weasel wording) because outrage clicks are still ad revenue-generating clicks.
The real question is how long will we--as a group of people who supposedly believe in science and order--continue to put up with the antics of a group of people who are nothing less than psychopathic bullies.
RMS's real transgression was simply questioning the unfounded claims of the bullies.
Re: (Score:3)
What recent behaviour, exactly?
Wanting to clarify that Minsky couldn't have been guilty? Clarifying the terms and scenario around that? Apologising for earlier statements he reconsidered? Referring to Epstein as a serial rapist deserving imprisonment?
I know it's crazy, but have you considered getting a clue?
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of open source licenses, with variations for whatever you like. Many more permissive than the GPL, many less so. Even several versions of the GPL.
Re: (Score:3)
> RMS presence alone has killed their respect in the industry
The special interests out for RMS-blood and the assholes in the industry who can't read a coherent logical argument are the ones who killed respect.
Re:The FSF is done. Stick a fork in it. (Score:4, Insightful)
The FSF is really just RMS's personal pet organization at this point.
The reactions have been far and away disproportionate to the things Stallman said. I know of nothing he has said or done which should affect his ability to continue to do what he has done so well.
...how to pick spokespeople who behave professionally.
What has Mr. Stallman's unprofessional behaviour been? And please show your work if/when you answer.
The propensity to find an off colour statement or opinion that is otherwise irrelevant to the field someone is in, something that not everyone shares and use that as the reason to crucify otherwise top performing people is disconcerting. He is where he is because he has had the courage to speak unpopular opinions. Not every opinion you personally have would be palatable to all, I guarantee it. The same with mine, and every other human. We all will have some thought or opinion somewhere that not everyone would agree with. Most people are too cowardly to speak most of them. Mr. Stallman has made a living out of not hiding his opinions. In the case of software freedom they are on point and valuable. If you don't find his opinions in other areas valuable, you don't have to listen to them or agree with them. But don't hate him because he's brave enough to speak them. They are not relevant to his core skills or contributions, and the people who want to use righteous indignation over them as a reason to leave the FSF are, I'm sure, not some of their best or brightest.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear!
Don't apologize. Don't resign. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let the mob flail. Stop giving into this nonsense from emotionally frail damaged people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let the mob flail. Stop giving into this nonsense from emotionally frail damaged people.
When your foundation depends on the respect an opinion of others, letting that respect burn is not going to win you any favours. Do you want the FSF to become completely irrelevant? Because that's what you hope to achieve.
At some point you people will need to wake up and realise that "public relations" exist for a reason, and not everyone can simply tell others to go fuck themselves. That's a privilege reserved for engineers, and workers in non-customer facing roles. Also a great position for armchair warri
Re:Don't apologize. Don't resign. (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't "woke politics" or "emotionally fragile people" - it was RMS for decades being extremely creepy towards women, pursuing them so aggressively that friends of mine who admired him ended up refusing to work for him any more, and warning other women on campus to never to be alone with him in a room or to ever be in a position where he had any professional leverage over them. This abusive behavior was well known at MIT, and it was only tolerated because he's technically so well regarded by the larger public who didn't know what RMS was like personally that they allowed him to behave in ways that would have gotten him fired elsewhere long ago. His most recent year's behavior was just the "icing on the cake" that made it impossible to continue to put up with his horrible behavior - he became such a liability that he was doing more damage than help to the cause of the FSF.
Re:Don't apologize. Don't resign. (Score:5, Funny)
Last I checked Feminists hated the word rapey. Could you please post your full name and place of work so we can demand termination of your employement?
Re: (Score:3)
"Emotionally frail damaged people"...? Remind me, which side has been talking about burning everything to the ground?
Get woke go broke (Score:4, Insightful)
RMS should have never left the board at all.
Woke politics can kill an organization.
Re:Get woke go broke (Score:5, Insightful)
See also: Mozilla.
Re: (Score:2)
> RMS should have never left the board at all.
Maybe with git, FSF doesn't need a board.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody will need to make decisions on license updates, which software should be accepted as part of the GNU project, how to spend donations, and similar administrative tasks. Those decisions don't need to be made by a board, but "put it in Git" doesn't address the range of decisions that the FSF makes as an organization. If it doesn't have a board, does it have a benevolent dictator, or roll dice, or what?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remind me again what the FSF has done in the past 20 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Advocating for free software, maybe? Just my hunch.
Re: (Score:3)
So they maintain a website saying they advocate free software? I can do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it speak to the fragility of open-source that the removal of one person can destroy the whole movement?
Re:Get woke go broke (Score:4, Interesting)
Advocating for free software, maybe? Just my hunch.
And have they done a very good job of it?
The GPL and LGPL are falling in popularity as free software licenses.
And the major freedom issue of the day isn't software licensing, it's data portability, and the FSF isn't a player in that discussion. Remember all the talk about Creative Commons when it was coming up? You had a horde of talented creative types committed to a very similar endeavour and again the FSF was missing from action.
RMS's Epstein email was certainly the instigator, but the fact is that the FSF hasn't been relevant since the early 2000's and RMS is part of the problem. Fundamentally RMS connects to white male geeks who are most comfortable with other white male geeks, and that's an increasingly small and uninfluential crowd, at the same time he makes a lot of other people uncomfortable.
Are some of the accusations about him false or overblown? Possibly, I still can't find a good answer on the whole "hot ladies" on his door thing. But no one forced him to defiantly re-instate himself to the FSF board without notice or any attempt at making amends. And that kind of behaviour is not something that advances the mission of the FSF.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's only a "crime" if you use paper for nudes.
Use marble, and people call you cultured.
Re: (Score:2)
The confusing thing is that the concepts of 'tolerance' and 'diversity' are so selectively meaningful.
Re: (Score:3)
What orgs have been killed since going "woke" (however you define it)?
I no longer following these things closely, but I attribute Mozilla's relative decline more to Google's push for Chrome starting in 2008 than the ousting of Eich for the gay marriage or any underlying changes. What other important or influential orgs have died?
I would read a long and detailed usenet screed or your top-of-mind list with equal interest.
"Stallman is a genius and a visionary"... (Score:3)
"Stallman is a stubborn, clueless idiot."
They can both be true you know. It happens all the time, and when it does the person can't tell which one he's being at any given time.
Good (Score:2)
Get some fresh blood in that organization. I haven't read an article about them doing anything particularly important in a while.
Enough with the witch hunt already (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure if I understand this correctly -- is this just meant to be protest at RMS himself *not " resigning?
Regardless of what anybody thinks of Stallman, whoever thinks he's unable to advance F/OSS agenda anymore (i.e. unable to be in any leading position with the FSF) should make that argument syand on it's own merits. Not piggy-back on a witch hunt.
What I constantly read these days is alternating between "RMS did something bad, but not illegal, and we won't tell you specifically what" and "...anyway, he's an unfit match for the position anyway amd has been that for $RESSONS for decades".
Honestly, even if that were true: the two pieces of critique have nothing in common. Bringing them together is a dishonest way to argue. Anybody who raises his hand to say "...btw, what I also always wanted to say against RMS..." is a spineless coward and instantly loses any credibility to the good faith of their agenda.
This is backpedaling on 350 years of enlightenment. From people who hold themselves intelligent.
WTF?!
Can we stop this? Or at least: can those with brains to think please smack those without anytime this topic comes up again? One each should do...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is also in protest against the rest of the FSF adding him back after he resigned.
The people making the argument that RMS is not an effective advocate for free software or leader for the FSF have made that argument on its own merits. They made it when RMS resigned the first time, and many have repeated it for people who ignored them. Many of them told him privately, or semi-privately, even before his first resignation that he was being more harmful than constructive.
Contrary to your assertion, most
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
100% bullshit from you. Elsewhere in this thread, I linked to the proposal [gnu.org] to remove him from the GCC steering committee, which has a lot of specifics. Paul Fisher [twitter.com] gives a first-hand report of Stallman's misbehavior, in response to someone linking to an open letter [github.io] about Stallman's misbehavior (see the appendix for specific examples). Another former FSF union steward [twitter.com] followed up, explaining her first-hand problems with RMS. One prominent free software developer, and former FSF board member, attests to [dreamwidth.org] h
Re: (Score:3)
Take your own advice. You're making dumb assertions about people being "factually wrong" based on your incredibly incoherent misrepresentation of the complaints. The complaints are NOT "somehow all magically related to the Minsky thing" -- they are all examples of how Stallman has a long and consistent record of being abrasive, misogynistic, and set in those ways. Yes they are all reasons to be upset over his behavior. You dismissively call that "outrage breath", but you don't explain why it's unjustifi
Re: (Score:2)
The statement does not specify any clear reason for their resignation, but it mentions "recent changes in governance", suggesting the problem is having RMS in the board.
Since they were in the board before this "scandal" started, it appears that they were ok with RMS in the board before he sent that email, but now they disagree. But they do not mention the specific issue. Probably because any statement they claim about what RMS did can be easily falsified, when discussing in a sensible and reasonable manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Or probably ...
They could have been part of the board members that forced RMS to resign in the first place, leveraging on the "scandal" (believe on the witch hunt or not).
And now he has regained the support of majority of the board, and they are forced to resign.
The Witch Hunt Wins!! (Score:2)
I've an idea (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for anyone else who thinks Stallman should go, but I quite enjoy Blazing Saddles. And Spaceballs and Young Frankenstein. They don't go around telling volunteers to try to make Emacs something it isn't (solely on the basis that the "boss" should decide what's important) or hitting on young people in a professional setting.
Remember that Hedy Lamarr (that's Hedley), the one character who did use his power like that, was the intentionally exaggerated and stereotyped bad guy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To borrow a phrase, "I don't know -- I can imagine quite a bit" (of pearl clutching). And I am all for helping most of that crowd understand why they're usually being unreasonable. But that doesn't make them wrong about this. RMS's behavior towards developers of free software and to young people who might develop free software has been deeply unprofessional for a long time.
RMS's behavior is somewhat akin to Linus Torvalds's older approach -- except that Linus listened to the people who told him he was bei
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have insight into Linus's thought process? I suspect Linus Torvalds is pretty much set for life financially at this point and I doubt he would make a decision to be a better leader for financial reasons.
Re:I've an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like hiring Roman Polanski to be your public representative and then not understanding the backlash.
Roman Polanski was charged with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. One of these things is not like the other.
Re:I've an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
If Stallman actually cared about the FSF ... (Score:3, Insightful)
then he would have already resigned by now simply for the damage his presence is doing to the overall organization -- whether that damage and him leaving was justified or not.
The way it is going now, the FSF is going to be reduced to a smoldering ruin because of Stallman's returned presence.
FSF bye-bye (Score:2, Flamebait)
FSF now down the woke garbage chute. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. But, it's truly sad the level of mental illness this indicates.
For once, I'm pretty happy with their resigns (Score:5, Insightful)
because that proves they were just plainly put idiots who only cared for their chair and have no spine at all.
Let's be CRYSTAL CLEAR: FSF is an association for open source. Richard Stallman is a thousand times better than the ones that resigned in advocating and defending open source.
So, don't forget the next time the stupid mob of ignorants came screaming at Richard Stallman that Gandhi was a pedophile who slept with his niece to "resist the temptation" (in his own words) or that Theresa of Calcutta was a masochist and denied any painkiller to her "patients" because "pain puts you closer to God" (in her own words), etc.
Richard Stallman is a sexist? Well, if you venerate Gandhi or Theresa and despise Richard, I cannot imagine a bigger hypocrite in the world than yourself, because: having to choose between a sexist or a pedophile or a masochist... I'd chose the first and not the latter ones.
Now, burn me!
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be CRYSTAL CLEAR: FSF is an association for open source.
Not exactly [gnu.org].
Woke(destruction) is just (Score:5, Insightful)
A question for the conspiracy theorists (Score:2)
If a big corporation is indeed behind this, who is it and why? Open source is bigger than ever. You can run Linux from within Windows now natively. Would it not have made more sense to launch this attack decades ago before the growth of the GNU toolchain?
Re: (Score:2)
If FOSS was a religion, isn't all this doubt a failure in the belief of core tenets? FOSS much like religion gets it's power from a multitude believing in it, not just one person.
Re: (Score:2)
Undoing mods to reply
You can run Linux from within Windows now natively.
That alone proves corporations want to control Linux. Why is running Linux even needed inside windows. Why doesn't Microsoft come out with a fully open source version of Office ? But it is OK to subsume Linux into Windows ?
Follow the money, already ESR left OSI and Corps now control it. https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com] See this quote, need more proof ?
continue their transition from the realm of volunteer-programmer activity to that of an industry backed by large corporations
Now their sights are set on FSF
Funny how all software has turned into spyware (Score:2)
Destroyed on the pretext of "Social Justice" (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot, agent of the scandal (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not "neutral" to consider that software belongs to the commons, it is very politically oriented, and the FSF is very political in essence. The natural opponent of the FSF would be proprietary software companies. But I do not belive there is a sort of cabal of proprietary software companies fueling the woke fire to promote their own interests. This situation is pure #metoo fallout and many people who are very vocal about this case today know very well that this is the best strategy for them to avoid having their own behavior scrutinized by the mob.
The problem with the woke people is that they have stopped considering Stallmann as a human being and they consider him as a symbol. As such he must be downed no matter what, even if he is not guilty before the law, even if he did not even say the things the woke people pretend he said, even if he didn't harass, molest, or violate anyone during all his career. As he somehow became the symbol of everything horrible in tech (to paraphrase the person who started the RMS cancelling, can't remember her name), there is no way he can defend himself, and no way anyone can defend him at this point.
I feel sorry for him.
Re: (Score:2)
But RMS is a symbol, especially to his supporters who claim that without him leading the FSF, software freedom is in jeopardy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's utter BS. I absolutely, 100% support RMS's vision of software freedom. That is not in dispute.
I also absolutely, 100% think that he's detrimental to the goals of the FSF because of his demeanor and unprofessional behaviour, and that he should not be on the board. Supporting RMS's ideas about software freedom while not supporting RMS the person is a perfectly consistent stance.
RMS has done tremendous good for software freedom. But his time has passed and it's time to let go.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Here [github.io] are some people who have put their names behind RMS.
That's not a list of people who've known and worked with RMS, have significant reputations by their own merits, and are now leveraging those reputations to defend him.
That's a list of people with Github accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is what is known as No True Scotman [wikipedia.org].
You don't get to demand that in order to rebut the claims of a bunch of bullies who don't actually know someone, there must be counter arguments made by only their close personal friends. If a handful of randos on the internet can cast aspersions, then a larger handful of randos on the internet can certainly be aloowed to rebut those aspersions.
It's time to accept that the worst he's actually been accused of barely rates as anything worth noting, and stop blindl
Re: (Score:3)
I can guess what you're trying to get at: the Stallman supporters from that list happen to be much, much more, huh, diverse than his detractors,
You sure about that? All I see is a bunch of Github accounts of people who support RMS, but that's not really the main problem.
thence you're certain that they can only be dummies and nobodies; it's absolutely excluded that they have any reputation of their own.
You don't have to know that (I don't believe you checked each and every link from the list), you're just feeling it: only western white males (and their harmless hand-reared pet "token minority") are supposed to have an opinion on this.
> That's a list of people with Github accounts.
As opposed to the lynch mob which is just a list of names, some of them happening to resemble or be the same as those of other people, who will now have to explain how they had nothing to do with all this shit.
Of course I don't know who they are, that's the point.
You know how RMS got in trouble? Because he had a significant reputation in the FLOSS community and chose to use that reputation to defend Minsky in a really questionable way. That bad defence not only got RMS in trouble but shed light on some of his own questionable behaviour.
Now, if RMS was being unfairly attacked I'd expect so
Re:If you cite "woke"/"cancel" culture, question: (Score:5, Insightful)
where are his defenders
This is exactly the problem with Cancel Culture. Their intimidation methods are so strong that supporters of the canceled person are afraid they'd be canceled as well. It take people with big brass balls to risk ruining their own reputation, like RMS did for Minsky.
Re:If you cite "woke"/"cancel" culture, question: (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS is a socially awkward introvert who says socially awkward things. Despite this, he managed to change the world through the GPL and FSF software. IBM and other major corporations want to take control of the GPL and are trying to oust RMS so they can replace him with their own lackeys.
Unfortunately for the corporations, RMS is not the kind of guy to give up fighting for his convictions when they become unpopular.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
where are his defenders?
You're getting ahead of yourself, Shill; what's he supposed to defend against, except the lies of paid shills??
Re: (Score:3)
If Mr. Stallman is being treated unfairly or is having his rights trampled, where are his defenders?
There are some [wetheweb.org]. Stallman and the FSF seem to have taken the approach of being quiet about the whole thing, and waiting for it to go away. You can tell they support him though, because they brought him back.