The FSF Clarifies Richard Stallman's Role (fsf.org) 127
Long-time Slashdot reader destinyland writes:
This week the Free Software Foundation posted some new answers to frequently-asked questions "as the FSF board sets about the work of strengthening the Foundation's governance structure." The FAQ notes that most of their financial support comes from individuals, and that "At this moment, the FSF has more associate members than at any time in its history," adding that it's in good financial health. (And the FAQ also reminds readers that all board members are uncompensated volunteers.)
But it also confirms that a seat on the board was created for union staff "in the aftermath of the March 2021 controversy over the election of Richard Stallman to the board." And apparently in light of Stallman's return, the first question is "What are the responsibilities of a member of the FSF board?"
Answer: The board of directors does not usually deal with the everyday work of the FSF, focusing instead on the long-term direction and financial stability of the Foundation, as well as the appointment of the officers. In addition, members of the board do not speak for the board or for the FSF. Outside of the deliberations of the board, they are private citizens. The right to speak for the Foundation is reserved to the president of the FSF and other FSF officers, such as the executive director.
When the board does make statements, each statement is carefully deliberated. No one member has this individual authority.
The FAQ also clarifies that while Stallman is also a voting board member, "Voting member meetings normally discuss only who should be on the board. They do not take up the issues that come before the board itself... When the Foundation was formed in 1985, the founders were advised that, to qualify for a tax exemption, board members should not be chosen solely by other board members. Legal counsel advised the founders that there should be two bodies with some overlap, one being the active board and the other being a body that appointed the active board.
"Governance standards have since changed, and this structure is no longer required. As part of the effort to improve FSF governance, the board can consider possible changes to this overall structure."
It also adds that "There is no formal term limit for a board member. Board members are evaluated by the voting members at regular intervals, and occasionally by the other directors."
The last question on the list? "In addition to holding a board seat, what other role or roles does Richard Stallman play in the FSF?"
The answer? "Richard Stallman frequently gives talks on free software, in his personal capacity, and, when he does so, he sells merchandise from the FSF shop, recruits volunteers for FSF and GNU, and raises donations for FSF. He is the primary author and editor of two books sold by the FSF."
But it also confirms that a seat on the board was created for union staff "in the aftermath of the March 2021 controversy over the election of Richard Stallman to the board." And apparently in light of Stallman's return, the first question is "What are the responsibilities of a member of the FSF board?"
Answer: The board of directors does not usually deal with the everyday work of the FSF, focusing instead on the long-term direction and financial stability of the Foundation, as well as the appointment of the officers. In addition, members of the board do not speak for the board or for the FSF. Outside of the deliberations of the board, they are private citizens. The right to speak for the Foundation is reserved to the president of the FSF and other FSF officers, such as the executive director.
When the board does make statements, each statement is carefully deliberated. No one member has this individual authority.
The FAQ also clarifies that while Stallman is also a voting board member, "Voting member meetings normally discuss only who should be on the board. They do not take up the issues that come before the board itself... When the Foundation was formed in 1985, the founders were advised that, to qualify for a tax exemption, board members should not be chosen solely by other board members. Legal counsel advised the founders that there should be two bodies with some overlap, one being the active board and the other being a body that appointed the active board.
"Governance standards have since changed, and this structure is no longer required. As part of the effort to improve FSF governance, the board can consider possible changes to this overall structure."
It also adds that "There is no formal term limit for a board member. Board members are evaluated by the voting members at regular intervals, and occasionally by the other directors."
The last question on the list? "In addition to holding a board seat, what other role or roles does Richard Stallman play in the FSF?"
The answer? "Richard Stallman frequently gives talks on free software, in his personal capacity, and, when he does so, he sells merchandise from the FSF shop, recruits volunteers for FSF and GNU, and raises donations for FSF. He is the primary author and editor of two books sold by the FSF."
Oh (Score:5, Informative)
The answer? "Richard Stallman frequently gives talks on free software, in his personal capacity, and, when he does so, he sells merchandise from the FSF shop, recruits volunteers for FSF and GNU, and raises donations for FSF. He is the primary author and editor of two books sold by the FSF."
So in other words, the actual useful work?
Re:Oh (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. that is why the corporate software houses are trying to get him cancelled. He is dangerous: he actually believes in his work, and does actual...work...rather than just virtue signaling. He also helps individuals and the community rather than the corporations. He is a very dangerous man in 2021.
Re: Oh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No one is entitled to be listened to, or have a job, or be taken seriously.
Too bad RMS is just a bit too weird for people, if he had any people skills whatsoever, he could have really been a force.
He did a lot of great things, but even that was extremely limited by his issues.
Re:Oh (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. that is why the corporate software houses are trying to get him cancelled.
About as much proof of that as their is about Trump's "they stole the election".
You can go back and read the previous stories, but Red Hat was all over this.
Re: (Score:2)
I could, but since it's wosehi6883 trying to convince us, I'll leave the work to him.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the people complaining about RMS happen to be RedHat employees. It's not rocket science and the claim is easily verifiable.
Re: Oh (Score:2)
Please prove that most of the complaint was by red hat folk. Donâ(TM)t just give me anecdotes, please do a comprehensive survey of the poet who voiced opposition to RMS being on the board and their stated affiliations and show your work
Re:Outdated, not dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, he is outdated. And not just in the minds of the big corporate developers. Adoption of the GPL by new FOSS developers has been in sharp long term decline. The large and small developers are overwhelmingly choosing more permissive licenses, by a 3 to 1 margin, 60% to 20%. The GPL used to be chosen around 50% of the time, but that is distant history.
The vast majority of developers use a proprietary license too. What is your point? I guess the iPhone is the best because people choose it. Also, so is crack. Crackheads choose crack by a 3 to 1 margin over other drugs.
But you are right: he is outdated. You guys all sold out. You are corporate whores. Fine, but don't go spewing your fake SJW virtue signaling bullshit when you clearly don't care about society.
Re: (Score:1)
The vast majority of developers use a proprietary license too. What is your point
I am not referring to proprietary, I am referring to FOSS projects. That the GPL is in drastic decline on its home turn demonstrates poor leadership.
Re: (Score:1)
> The large and small developers are overwhelmingly choosing more permissive licenses, by a 3 to 1 margin
You have referenced other "licenses", which is implicitly any license that is not GPL, including proprietary.
> I am not referring to proprietary, I am referring to FOSS projects
You're arguing in bad faith by pretending to argue about something other than the subject of the response. The decline includes choosing proprietary (MIT, et al), and you fully ignore it by saying "i'm not talking about tha
Re: (Score:1)
Don't bother. You are fake.
Poor leadership, or perhaps... (Score:1)
I'd love to see RMS retire as a hero, resting comfortably on his laurels. Instead, he's staying on as a scapegoat.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd love to see RMS retire as a hero, resting comfortably on his laurels
So would the corporations. What is on Netflix tonight? Anything good? There is an Antifa rally this weekend in the city? Want to go?
Re: (Score:1)
On that. I'm fine with free software and the people who believe it is vital. But I'm not fine at all with the majority of free'ers who's main goal to arguing for their OWN "little guy" projects while smearing others. All the time sabotaging every open source dev line they can find, or just taking it over all together and going on about the "nature of the beast" and what not... Making sure they are well paid then going right back to the "free software for all" angle. The whole argument of Stallman or not Stallman for too many will always point to the side that creates enough chaos to get them paid... Social media be damned to heck.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, most people who use hard drugs will use whatever is easy to get at the time: crack, heroin, meth, or whatever. The idea of someone being a crackhead or a junky is a myth, for the most part.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad someone else pointed this out, because it's absolutely true. There is a joke among addicts that answer to "what do you use?" is "what have you got?"
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose it's better than eating them.
The FSF is an advocacy group, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
What I'm not clear on is what useful function does the FSF serve in the 21st century? Emphasis on useful. I'm not convinced advocacy is useful anymore. You keep advocating after the argument is over and people will just tune you out.
GNU is another thing. I've got my complaints about the details of what they do, but I'm fully on board with their general concept. FSF is talk, GNU is action. GNU shows us the code. I respect that.
Re:The FSF is an advocacy group, right? (Score:5, Informative)
What I'm not clear on is what useful function does the FSF serve in the 21st century? Emphasis on useful
They maintain and update the GPL. Legal and technical environments change, so further versions of the GPL will be needed.
Re: (Score:1)
What I'm not clear on is what useful function does the FSF serve in the 21st century? Emphasis on useful
They maintain and update the GPL. Legal and technical environments change, so further versions of the GPL will be needed.
Their current update of the GPL, v3, is adopted by only 10% of new FOSS projects.
Re: (Score:1)
Their current update of the GPL, v3, is adopted by only 10% of new FOSS projects.
So what? That is a bad thing for you and me and society in general. I mean, I know you don't care about society: but you would think the narcissists here would care about their own futures since they are so heavily invested in the computing field.
LOL. So by calling out the FSF's poor leadership and strategy, of complaining about the decline of GPL usage, I don't care? That's some amazing logic.
And then you seem to go on to advocate to maintain a cult of personality rather than reform/rebuild a failing organization. That's another amazing use of logic on your part.
Re: (Score:1)
What SJW argument have I made? I have referred exclusively to drastic and long term decline in GPL popularity that predates the current controversy. That is a leadership and strategy failure. You don't think leadership and strategy success are fair metrics to just FSF leaders by?
Can we all agree on two things? (Score:2)
2. The FSF has become culturally dysfunctional.
We can disagree as to which of these came first. Speaking for myself, I think Stallman is being ill used in this whole affair. He is a scapegoat. But regardless, the FSF is something to leave behind us.
Let us honor the good, and bury the bad in an unmarked grave. Then let's move on.
Re: The FSF is an advocacy group, right? (Score:4, Informative)
Without the FSF Google, Microsoft and the other co-conspirators against RMS would run roughshod over the GPL. They want the GPL so you give them free code while they TiVo-ize the infrastructure around it.
Thatâ(TM)s why they have created this smear campaign against RMS through subsidiaries like Mozilla , Github and others that depend on the sizable donations and sponsorship from those corporations.
If any of those corporations would be honestly worrying about any behavior by any private citizen, they would start in their own house, with their own CEOs.
So it's all about the battle of lawyers? (Score:2, Insightful)
One unspoken premise here seems to be that we need the GPL, and the other open source licenses won't do.
The other unspoken premise is that coding and sharing code needs lawyers involved for some reason. Maybe it does. In which case, an open source license is a necessary, um, thing.
Legal language is like coding - if the system architecture were a matter of a judge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Without the FSF you would not have the GPL. Without the GPL you wouldn't have Free Software.
Except for MIT, Apache, BSD, etc. Which are chosen by new FOSS projects three times more often than the GPL.
Re: (Score:1)
How does doubling down on failure protect the GPL? (Score:2)
You didn't read what I wrote.
I did. My point is that the FSF leadership is outdated and failing.
And proprietary software is chosen 1000 times more than any of those license, so I guess, um, yay? Great argument!
Red herring. I only referred to FOSS projects, which should be the GPL's home field. It once was, it is no longer. A result of long term leadership/strategy failure.
How does doubling down on failure protect the GPL?
Re: How does doubling down on failure protect the (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It is not a red herring. The GPL has never been about popularity. It has always been about principle.
Again, its being rejected by **FOSS based** startups 3 to 1, we aren't even counting non-FOSS in this. Its a red herring to portray it as a large corporation thing or a commercial thing.
Its not a popularity contest, its an effectiveness contest and the FSF has been largely ineffective for years. If you want FSF principles to be a historical footnote, continue on with this business as usual.
Re:So it's all about the battle of lawyers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that MIT, Apache and BSD aren't truly open licenses in the way that RMS wants software to be open. The GPL was built because the prior licenses allowed big corporations like AT&T (who sold Unix) to take and sell your changes with no attribution.
GPL requires changes to be sold, open to the customer, together with the software, the rest don't or are explicitly built (eg. Apache and MIT) to allow for closed source versions of software. Given the current state of surveillance and ad-driven systems, that should scare anyone.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that MIT, Apache and BSD aren't truly open licenses in the way that RMS wants software to be open.
The point is the GPL dropped from around 50% adoption of new FOSS project to 20%. So FSF/RMS is doing a terrible job evangelizing that opinion. That is the point. Do you want the GPL to succeed, find a new way to evangelize it.
Don't forget EEE. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In that case... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Without the FSF you would not have the GPL. Without the GPL you wouldn't have Free Software. I realize that you guys don't care about Free Software, but that is because you are ignorant of what Free Software is.
That argument is completely lacking any subjective reasoning. I remember the Linux people drafting a free software licensing scheme pre 1.x. But the "free software" people rejected it as it didn't cover all free software, existing or as yet to be created, for all time,... And even tried to kill the Linux project? So to say some legal definition of "free software" would never have existed without the Free Software Foundation, especially in the US, is a bit obtuse.
A third unspoken premise... (Score:2)
So the corporations get free code? I can live with that, so long as everybody else also gets free code. It never was a level playing field, but this does give us a small measure of equality.
And they're going to get that code, one way or another, for nothing more than the price of t
Re: (Score:1)
So the corporations get free code? I can live with that, so long as everybody else also gets free code. It never was a level playing field, but this does give us a small measure of equality.
Um, yes. That is what the GPL and Free Software is about. So how is it a "unspoken premise" that the GPL accomplishes that? You literally just confirmed it. That is what the GPL is. Why not just come out and say what you mean, rather than obliquely making ridiculous statements.
Meanwhile, anyone who fights them also needs expensive lawyers
Hence the FSF and fundraising. Seriously, what is your point? Do you even have one?
My point is this all seems like... (Score:2)
I'll grant that killing software patents was a wonderful thing. Now what have the legal wranglers done for us lately?
Here's an idea: put all our "open source" code into the public domain. No legal language beyond "no warranty, express or implied." Watch the lawyers' faces as they realize they're ones who are screwed this time. We could even do it anonymously for extra fun.
Then we can stop the hand wringing over what the FSF has become, because the FSF won't matter. And the cor
Re: (Score:1)
I'll grant that killing software patents was a wonderful thing. Now what have the legal wranglers done for us lately?
JESUS CHRIST. How narcisstic are you people???
Here's an idea: put all our "open source" code into the public domain. No legal language beyond "no warranty, express or implied." Watch the lawyers' faces as they realize they're ones who are screwed this time. We could even do it anonymously for extra fun.
Go for it. the corporations will sell it back to you in a closed box and you can go consume and be happy.
I suppose commercial software vendors will be very upset, but it's the hardware vendors who have the clout - and they'll be on board with public domain source code as natural allies. The software houses will just have to sell support. No more rent seeking.
Why would software houses be upset to get code for free and not give back? dmb is right: the FSF is outdated. People are too far gone down the corporate rabbit hole. Enjoy your life. What is on Netflix tonight?
I don't need them to give back. (Score:2)
And nobody is going to pay anybody money for a "box" full of code we've all already got. That would be silly.
For vendors, it will be value added or go bust. They'll be forced to work for a living.
There's something petty and mean about trying to keep our code away from people and organizations we don't like. That kind of thinking leads to dark places. I want no part of it.
Re: (Score:1)
If Linux became closed source (as this is the meaning of 'value adding' to public domain) and Microsoft sold a closed source version with an NSA backdoor, would you be happy? The minute you take a public domain code and make a change, it becomes proprietary once again. That is what the GPL is there to prevent.
No, the original is always there, and always free. (Score:2)
And who is harmed by the existence of proprietary changes? Suppose I make a change and keep it myself, for own private use? That's as private as private gets. Who is harmed? Who will even know?
Re: (Score:2)
This won't work at all like you think it will. Public domain means people can do what they want with it, including keeping private any changes they make to it and relicensing the result. You see it sometimes in music, where someone reworks a classical pi
Is that a problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of licenses like the GPL is to require sharing of the changes, preventing the code from being locked up behind proprietary licenses. Sure, you have the original, and meanwhile the company is selling the modified, very much improved version to your competitors, who then have the advantage over you.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone does what he can get away with.
That's REALLY not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Without the FSF Google, Microsoft and the other co-conspirators against RMS would run roughshod over the GPL.
And whose bright idea was "GPL v3 or later"? "Or later" is an example of exceptionally poor strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the GPL's most successful project, Linux, is stuck on version 2.
Even if Linus and Greg accepted the provisions of version 3, it's impractical to get the permission of *every* licensor, I.e. the code contributor to sign off. Linux doesn't have a contributor agreement to assign copyright back to the project.
Re: (Score:2)
This problem will go away once GNU/Hurd is ready for prime time.
Re: (Score:2)
I understood that reference!
Re: (Score:1)
Because the GPL's most successful project, Linux, is stuck on version 2.
Nope these survey are looking at new FOSS projects. Linux stuck at 2 is irrelevant. The metric is not usage, its adoption in new projects.
Permissive FOSS licenses outperforming GPL 3 to 1 (Score:3)
What I'm not clear on is what useful function does the FSF serve in the 21st century?
Well obviously it creates new versions of the GPL. New versions (ex GPL3) that will be chosen by a mere 10% of new FOSS projects.
To be fair another 10% go with GPL2. But claiming that as a win is sort of like Microsoft claiming those customers sticking to Windows 7 are a win.
Meanwhile, MIT and Apache have 54% of new projects, toss in BSD and we have 61%. The permissive licenses are outperforming the GPL by over 3 to 1. That is not successful advocacy.
Emphasis on useful. I'm not convinced advocacy is useful anymore. You keep advocating after the argument is over and people will just tune you out.
Hence the long term decline of GPL usage, it just d
Re: (Score:1)
Meanwhile, MIT and Apache have 54% of new projects, toss in BSD and we have 61%. The permissive licenses are outperforming the GPL by over 3 to 1. That is not successful advocacy.
Then you should chip in to help with the advocacy since the FSF is doing such a bad job at it. Or is it that you don't like the GPL? Oh, that makes sense. Then why do you care about the FSF so much to comment? Go work for Redhat (IBM) or whatever corporation you work for and be happy. Good luck. Just don't complain about it. You are part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Will you take that step? No. You won't. You are fake. It is much easier to virtue signal than to do something. That is what is wrong with SJW.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the first step. The second step is to help: https://my.fsf.org/join [fsf.org] Will you take that step? No. You won't. You are fake. It is much easier to virtue signal than to do something. That is what is wrong with SJW.
What SJW arguments have I made? I have referred to nothing other than GPL adoption trends that predate the current controversy.
And for the record I do support FOSS. Materially and financially.
Re: (Score:3)
Overall the increase in the amount of Apache and MIT licenced software is not a bad thing. It is still free and it is free to use, so in that sense GPL is not in competition with it. However, the FSF position would be that GPL and then LGPL software is better because of the protections against Tivoisation.
I think the bigger question from the FSF point of view would be, is the amount (by what ever measure you want to measure it) of software that is covered by GPL or LGPL increasing or decreasing. That's a di
Re: The FSF is an advocacy group, right? (Score:2)
Then our society is built on jello. (Score:2)
You need something more solid than talk to hold up anything that actually works and can endure. When that something fails, no amount of code bloat in the rules and regulations will hold it all up.
Write the software you want to see in the world. And if you love it, set it free.
The only talk wort
When your work drives away people ... (Score:2)
The answer? "Richard Stallman frequently gives talks on free software, in his personal capacity, and, when he does so, he sells merchandise from the FSF shop, recruits volunteers for FSF and GNU, and raises donations for FSF. He is the primary author and editor of two books sold by the FSF."
So in other words, the actual useful work?
When your work drives away people from your product or service it is not useful. And I am NOT talking about the personal behavior type scandals, I am literally talking about advocating for the GPL. The GPL has been experiencing a long term decline in usage. Only 20% of new FOSS projects choose the GPL, down from around 50%. More permissive licenses like MIT, Apache and BSD now account for 60% of new projects. Of the 20% that are GPL, half of those are GPL2. So we have 10% of new projects following RMS' lead
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You sure are obsessed with popularity rather than what is Right and what is Wrong. That is a personal failure on your part. You should probably re-evaluate your life.
The "right thing" is not terribly useful when it is not chosen
Re: (Score:3)
It is too bad that most FOSS projects will not have the backing of a charismatic figure to help bring in money to help keep the project going.
Successful FOSS projects fall under the following:
Core Infrastructure Software: A product that everyone needs, and can be widely distributed. Companies will often help fund these, as they want to keep the software for their infrastructure.
Development Software: Much like Core Infrastructure
Distributions: Less of a money maker than before, but gluing all the mixture o
How about this kind of clarification instead: (Score:1, Troll)
Leader of the band. (Score:2)
The answer? "Richard Stallman frequently gives talks on free software, in his personal capacity, and, when he does so, he sells merchandise from the FSF shop, recruits volunteers for FSF and GNU, and raises donations for FSF. He is the primary author and editor of two books sold by the FSF."
In other words a spokesperson. Current controversy isn't going to have any negative effect on all that seems to be the unspoken hope.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Eh, I'd be just fine using a commercial unix without any of the GNU tools. I don't care about looking at the source or how "free" the license is. I use the computer to get work done.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Leader of the band. (Score:2)
So go ahead then. Nobody is here to stop you. Clearly Free Software is not your pair of shoes.
In other news, I care shit for chess. I'm going to find a chess forum now, and post there how content I am to now own a chess game or play any. I love backgammon so much more. I'm sure they just burn to know that. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The answer? "Richard Stallman frequently gives talks on free software, in his personal capacity, and, when he does so, he sells merchandise from the FSF shop, recruits volunteers for FSF and GNU, and raises donations for FSF. He is the primary author and editor of two books sold by the FSF."
In other words a spokesperson. Current controversy isn't going to have any negative effect on all that seems to be the unspoken hope.
He takes care of the minor clerical stuff like teaching people about free software.
This frees up the rest of the staff for the important tasks, like crafting DEI policies.
Re: (Score:1)
This frees up the rest of the staff for the important tasks, like crafting DEI policies.
Aren't those more informally known as DIE policies?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they are pretty explicitly distancing themselves from him. They say that his talks on free software are "in his personal capacity". They describe him as a fundraiser and a recruiter of volunteers, never saying he speaks for the FSF. The statement makes it explicit that individual board members are not inherently authorized to speak for the FSF or for the board.
Identifying him as a voting member of the board, and explaining that the voting members are only really responsible for selecting who gets the
Re: (Score:1)
Identifying him as a voting member of the board, and explaining that the voting members are only really responsible for selecting who gets the set the day-to-day policies and directions, is another way to minimize his official role.
Except it doesn't do that at all. It explains what a voting member is and then says :
That says that rms, amongst others, is one of the current directors i.e. a board member and that all those current directors, including rms, are voting members.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What are you talking about? He is both a board member and a voting board member.
I think the term "voting board member" was invented by the person who wrote the summary but otherwise yes - he is both a board member and a voting member.
Why do people not like RMS? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I personally don't agree with him, but you are clearly lying about what he said. gmack, why are you lying?
Re:Why do people not like RMS? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Why do people not like RMS? (Score:2)
Somebody mod this up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He opposes the corporate takeover of the computing industry. Period. This is literally what this is about. The SJW are just useful idiots for the corporation to get what they want.
He is in the position of advocacy, which means he has to persuade people to change their opinions. Bleating about "SJW" isn't going to change anyone's opinion and is just going to get you dismissed as an idiot.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Was he accused of some sexual misbehaviour? Corrupt? What did he do wrong? I am completely lost here..
Charges? We don't need no steenking charges ...
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Several things.
1. He has sexually harassed women for decades. When told to stop doing this at conferences, he started handing out "pleasure cards" inviting "tender embraces" as an alternative. When rules were introduced that he helped craft said this was inappropriate to do at conferences, he took to inviting them out in front of the building (thus outside of the conference) to hand them to women. There are a number of women on Twitter and elsewhere who have posted pictures of the cards they received and ho
Re: (Score:2)
2. He has advocated eugenics, saying that women who do not abort Down Syndrome fetuses are "torturing" the resulting children by "treating them like pets." His wording suggests that other birth defects should also be aborted, and that failure to do so is morally wrong.
So he's a doctrinaire Democrat? Seriously, what part of that goes against the Democrat/woke party line?
I'm okay with banning the aborting of babies with Down syndrome (or any other birth defect, for that matter). Are you?
Re: (Score:1)
No, I'm not. But it's a decision the mother should make, not Stallman, who to any public knowledge has never fathered a child, nor anyone else. Such a decision is difficult enough already.
Re: (Score:2)
Marvin Minsky was caught up in the Epstein scandal in that he had sex with at least one of Epstein's victims of trafficking of often underage girls.
No one who had knowledge of the situation has accused Minsky of that.
Board membership (Score:2)
The FAQ also clarifies that while Stallman is a voting board member, "Voting member meetings normally discuss only who should be on the board. They do not take up the issues that come before the board itself...
This (the Slashdot summary) is confusingly worded. The quote above from the summary reads to me as if he is only a voting member and therefore doesn't take up issues that come before the board. In the FAQ rms is clearly identified as both a director (board member) and a voting member. All the board members are also voting members.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, and the thing is many of his defenders (I use that term loosely since they seem to be the same crowd who crowed about "toe cheese", but who have flipped now they think "SJW" are involved) seem to think that RMS is the FSF. If that's the case then the FSF has 10 yeas left before it dies for good.
Otherwise, the FSF need to figure out now how to not basically be the vehicle of RMS.
despite the bad press he is a good man,
He is like most people a mix. Some good, some bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I've added the word "also" into that sentence in the Slashdot summary. Hopefully that addresses any issue with clarity.
Re: (Score:2)
The reference to "voting board member" (in the summary) appears to be wrong. "Voting member" here is a voting member of the body that elects the board members.
In non profit associations board members are traditionally elected by a much larger body of members *of the association*. However, a large scale democracy with lots of voting members is inconvenient so some organizations artificially limit voting membership to a much smaller group, in this case a very small group that has no other purpose than to e
Re: (Score:1)
I have this great idea for a new TV show. The premise is simple. Just toss a liberal celebrity into the ring with a couple of Marines, and spend about an hour filming him getting the living shit beat out of him. Wouldn't it be great, every night you can turn on your TV and watch some loathsome parasite like Gavin Newsome or Chuck Schumer getting a Front Street Face Lift? If that's not a hit, I don't know what is!
Ok, I lol'd for that.