FSF doubles down on Richard Stallman's return: Sure, he is 'troubling for some' but we need him, says org The Free Software Foundation (FSF) on Monday apologized for mishandling the announcement last month that founder Richard Stallman, or RMS, had been reelected to its board of directors – and published a statement from RMS both justifying his behavior and apologizing for it. "FSF staff should have been informed and consulted …
One of the many problems with Stallman is his defence of underage sex gave the impression Professor Minsky had sex with one of Epstein's victims. From wakipedia:
Virginia Giuffre testified in a 2015 deposition in her defamation lawsuit against Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell that Maxwell directed her to have sex with Minsky among others. There has been no allegation that sex between them took place nor a lawsuit against Minsky's estate. Minsky's widow, Gloria Rudisch, says that he could not have had sex with any of the women at Epstein's residences, as they were always together during all of the visits to Epstein's residences.
Chinese whispers of some of Stallman's less objectionable statements caused a media storm which caused people to look more closely - and there was plenty to find. Stallman's damaging defence of Minsky is more than sufficient reason to keep him out of any advocacy position. A far greater reason would be the number of people he has driven away from software entirely. One of the statements I find particularly unforgivable is that he threatened to commit suicide if one of his students did not have sex with him. (I know there is worse but that is a type of threat my cousin had to deal with and I did not like the consequences.)
The law is explicit that minors (sexual consent-wise) can't make an informed decision.
There's the case of the 27 yr old female teacher prosecuted for rape with her apparently willing 15 yr old male student. Typical reaction: lucky bastard! But what if the student was gay (or simply not interested), but didn't want to offend someone in power over him?
Ah, but which law is that?
In this case, the woman in question was 17. So capable of making an informed decision? Well, not in the territory that these events are said to have happened where the age of consent was (and maybe still is) 18.
It was foolish to have such a nuanced argument on an email list; it was likely to be misunderstood there as it is here, but that was the argument.
But he said “so what if she was too young, she knew what she was doing”.
No he didn't; that's so wrong it's not even in the same ballpark. What he said was (paraphrasing): "Minsky may well have had no idea that she was underage or coerced, because Epstein would very likely have ordered her not to tell him that."
There's a big difference between disagreeing with someone and, in your words, attempting "to silence (or cancel someone)".
RMS has done a lot of good work for the free software movement (and I expect he will continue to do so), but he has also said some things, and behaved in some ways, that are, at best, a bit icky and inappropriate, and which society, very rightly, now has less tolerance for.
I'm sure no one (apart from real zealots) wants to silence him, but I don't think it's unreasonable that some organisations are now effectively saying "We were uncomfortable about some things previously, and we do now realise that we were wrong to have mostly turned a blind eye to them in the past, and so we must both acknowledge this and also state that we would now prefer, for the good of the organisation, not to have you in what is seen to be a leadership position".
The news story is about the controversy following Stallman's return to a board membership. NoneSuch's comment is that isolation is an inappropriate response to Stallman's actions. My comment is that denying someone board membership does not amount to isolation.
From that you get: "Straw man! Straw man!"?
I'm struggling to see it.
"Is this another one of those twitter storms in a tea cup where the professionally offended get...well....offended"
I dunno, without having read all he has written, but tried to find examples. I think it is one of these cases were people default to rage instead of debate. I find it sad that it happens within a part of our society that claims to be inclusive and claims to seek the truth through debate and examination. I am not saying the rage can't be justified. There is plenty of elements in our society that is bad. Elements being both persons, groups and systemic. I am saying that, first: rage is often the wrong tool if you want results and second: that if you default to it you will certainly end up fuelling the society you do not want and even turning your own side into it.
What is boils down to is:
Who the speaker is matters. Is it veiled speak from a politician trying to cover up "illegitimate" views with seemingly legit arguments, is it a guy on the spectrum looking at the world and society as an intellectual exercise or somebody that is simply not enlightened yet in some understanding of the world. Against neither of these rage would be a good tool. The politician in this case is a liar and the arguments needs to be undressed and unpacked, not for the benefit of the politician, but for the benefit of the people he or she is trying to convince. The person that is not enlightened you have to understand the background to. For any of us over the age of twenty, there are lots of majority opinions that existed when we were born that has already been moved to unacceptable. People that lag a little behind the times need to included and brought up to speed. Unless we do so we will create a society which will throw us all under the bus when we age a little. And last, what about the guy on the spectrum. Here we have some perfect example that using rage in a quest for social justice and a tolerant society ends up being exclusive and narrow minded. One is literally attacking somebody due to an attribute that person is born with. Seems to me like a definition of something.
Attacking people that simply needs to be taught is exactly the thing we are trying to get rid of and it is attacking the very fabric of the path forward for any society. It disgusts me to the core and this whimsical rage that exists, in the so called academia and among those that claim to be educated, is a cancer and it may very well bring the western world to end. And there we have it, I am raging as well sums my point up quite nicely.
Want to be friends, or at least friendly enough to talk to each other?
Attacking people that simply needs to be taught is exactly the thing we are trying to get rid of and it is attacking the very fabric of the path forward for any society. It disgusts me to the core and this whimsical rage that exists, in the so called academia and among those that claim to be educated, is a cancer and it may very well bring the western world to end. And there we have it, I am raging as well sums my point up quite nicely.
It's such an injustice that I can only upvote you once.
Want to be friends, or at least friendly enough to talk to each other?
YES
The lack of debating in good faith is not exclusive academia. Not by a long shot.
But it is certainly the last place one expects it. Yet, it's just as pervasive there as everywhere else.
I share you dream of persuasion through facts, being the savior of mankind, but that has never been the case.
To quote Mark Twain:
"Peace by persuasion has a pleasant sound, but I think we should not be able to work it. We should have to tame the human race first, and history seems to show that that cannot be done."
- Letter to William T. Stead, 1/9/1899 from Mark Twain
Sometime you just have to whack people upside the head with a clueX4. Especially the dangerous ones.
I can forgive what Stallman's "apology" addressed. What I cannot forgive is some of the things he wrote on his personal website stallman.org including:
"I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.) It is unnatural for humans to abstain from sex past puberty, and while I wouldn't try to pressure anyone to participate, I certainly encourage everyone to do so."
Or “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.”
Downvoted for being against pedophillia? Wow, a new low for the register comments section.
To be perfectly clear the guy is a sex offence waiting to happen. He's even for necrophillia and sex with animals. Downvote all you like, he shouldn't be on the streets nevermind helming an organisation.
https://stallman.org/articles/extreme.html
since when do we lock people away for what they may think?
Since 10 minutes in the future if this crowd get their way. It's the logical next step from deplatforming. This person you're replying to is simply more honest about what he actually wants than most of the mob. The truth is that they won't be happy until it's illegal to have an opinion different from theirs.
And then once they get that they'll just create internal divisions and tear themselves apart from the inside (you already see this all over the place if you look).
But don't worry, in the new and better world they're creating you'll still be totally free to think and do whatever they say is OK: The worst that will happen if your opinion differs from the mainstream is that you'll have your livelihood taken away with zero due process. Or perhaps you'll get locked up a little bit if you say something that people think is really gross.
But it's not a problem - you'll still totally have freedom of speech. Just with a few more restrictions on your speech, that's all.
> To be perfectly clear the guy is a sex offence waiting to happen.
That's like saying that anyone for drug legalization is an addict. Like you could only ever advocate a thing because you had a personal stake in it.
If I'd buy anyone to say things like that for purely principled, non-personal reasons, it'd probably be Stallman.
Also, honestly, when you said he supports sex with animals and necrophilia, my first reaction was "ah, that makes sense." There's reasons to view animals and corpses as worthy of protection, but they tend to be based more on a disgust reaction than any actual moral principle. Frankly, I consider those much more defensible than his views on children.
A sex toy doesn't give consent either.
What, that's not the same thing as an animal or a corpse? An animal or corpse are also not the same thing as a living human being. And honestly, sentiment aside - and that's a BIG thing to put aside, and I agree with the illegality of necrophilia, but morality should be on a firmer footing than sentiment - morally, a corpse is closer to a sex toy than a human being: inanimate matter.
Let me be clear: I am against necrophilia. But that's because corpses are held sacred in society, and sex is inherently profane. I simply don't think you can get that from a consent standard.
Regarding animals, we don't ask for consent for anything else we do to animals either, including our very frequent torture, killing and consumption. Honestly, if you fucked an animal, it would be one of the nicer things on the list of things that humans do to animals.
Of course, the real reason is usually "I think it's bloody disgusting." Which it is! But that's not the same as morally wrong.
Stallman does **everything** for himself only and his own advantage only. He's an uber-egoist. Just look at his behaviour - everything must be as he wants to please him only. He would never adapt to anything.
All his fuss about free software is just because he wanted all the software without having to payi- because he didn't have to earn his money from writing software, of course. He never said university people should work for free for the enlightenment of mankind...
>And of course you, LDS, do everything for the betterment of others, at all times, right?
The difference is that the majority of readers here don't stand on a soapbox...
What has Stallamn done that has financially benefited your typical employed software developer?
The difference is that the majority of readers here don't stand on a soapbox...
Hmm... LDS, jake, Roland6 - all fairly frequent occupants of the Register soapbox (as I am as well, of course).
What has Stallamn done that has financially benefited your typical employed software developer?
You may be too young to know, but Stallman provided a lot of philosophical leadership in the early days of the concept of "free software". His opinions provided an important starting point for a lot of debate - some agreeing with him, others adopting different views, which has resulted in the enormously wide field of "free and open source software" today.
And, of course, Stallman was the primary creator of the GPL which has been an important driver in the wide development and adoption of Linux, which has transformed the financial basis of much software development today.
When I was an employed software developer I used many tools every day which either contained code written by Stallman (emacs and many GNU tools) or released under the GPL (as well as many under other licences inspired by the FOSS concepts).
I am no supporter of Stallman. I believe the FSF is better off without him - if they really need his skills they should have employed hm as a consultant. I will not be donating to the FSF while he is on the board. But it is ridiculous to suggest he did not drive major changes in the software industry which have benefited every single software developer and every single software company.
What has Stallamn done that has financially benefited your typical employed software developer?
By asking this question you've just demonstrated your ignorance.
I could give you a dozen examples off the top of my head but I'm not going to bother because you can find many more examples than that by taking 30 seconds to do a web search.
Not that I'm supporting him... but what pushed him into campaigning about software freedom wasn't about having to pay, but about not having access to the source code so he could make a modified version (of a printer driver, to get it to send status messages).
> To be perfectly clear the guy is a sex offence waiting to happen.
Your comment is distasteful and borderline libellous.
He is commenting in a detached sense to an issue that he sees purely as definitional and logical.
You might disagree with some of his views but calling him a potential sex offender because you disagree with him is a smidge extreme and probably actionable.
I think it's worth saying that he has, much later, said he's not in fact in favour of paedophilia any more. But he's decided this only after people have explained to him in ways he could (eventually) understand that it's not in fact a good thing.
So I think the point is that he's not evil: he's ill. His mind doesn't work in a way which makes it obvious to him that paedophilia is a ghastly evil, because his mind has bits missing which are present in the minds of most people. He also, I think, probably really does not understand that his behaviour towards women is grossly offensive, and perhaps in some cases outright illegal (and I personally know someone who has been 'accosted' (her word, haven't asked her more as I'm not having that kind of conversation by email, because my brain works properly) by Stallman). That's the only way he knows how to behave, because he completely fails to understand how human relationships work: he wants sex like we all do and he thinks the way to get it is to badger people until they give in. His theory of mind just doesn't work very well, at all.
This is very sad if true: I would not want to be him. But I also would not want to be anywhere near him, and I would certainly not want him in a position of power of any kind.
But the FSF do: well, this says exactly what you think it says about them, and exactly what you think it says about whether you would want to have anything at all to do ith them.
Since I personally share a number of his traits, know it, try to control it, have had people try to help me with it. But when it comes down to it, most people are idiots and any argument based on morality or social norms often fails a logical attack.
But here is the test, upvote this post if you can see some of yourself in this guy, downvote it if you share no thoughts in common.
Same here. There is a world of difference between looking at some of the rules perpetrated by neurotypical people and trying to find anything logical in them (for example, ages of sexual consent are arbitrary - look at the variation amongst European countries, let alone around the world or throughout history). That doesn't mean that they don't have utility, but normative rules need to be founded in rational argument, and that so rarely happens - stuff is inflicted on us because something incredibly rare happens (anti terrorist legislation, for example). It makes no sense that people can be vilified for saying that there us a different way of looking at things.
If she was 17 and he was say 21 - it is less clear morally (but not legally). If he is old man 68, and they have talked for 1 minute at party and he says "let's go!", that is entirely different. Most 68 year old men would feel uncomfortable about that - my guess is that Minsky didn't have sex with her - Guiffre's deposition only says she was ordered to, not that she did. RMS' argument assumes Minsky took up the opportunity, and then tries to justify it.
Of course RMS remains 21 at heart. I guess that explains his viewpoint.
@tfb: Well said. It's one of the strange things in life that each of us lives in our own personal reality, which we each perceive according to how our own mind works. There is a general consensus of what constitutes "normal" behaviour, but even there, there will be some blurring at the boundaries.
But anyone whose brain works in a different way (such as to perhaps a greater degree some people who are further along the autism spectrum), or who has had the very real misfortune to experience mental wellbeing (mental health) difficulties at any point in their life will probably (but not necessarily, which is also important, where that is the case) be aware that others see the world in a different way from them.
I'm reminded of a quote from "A Beautiful Mind", the film about the mathematician John Nash. I do not know whether the scene is a reasonable portrayal of an actual event in his own life, but it was both quite saddening (in a compassionate way) and, I thought, an interesting depiction of the difficulties people whose brains don't quite work in neurotypical ways face. Nash approaches a woman at a bar:
"I don't exactly know what I am required to say in order for you to have intercourse with me. But could we assume that I said all that. I mean essentially we are talking about fluid exchange right? So could we go just straight to the sex."
Most of us know that's not how you attempt to chat up or woo someone (although I dare say that, in some situations, with a very sexually liberated person, such an approach might sometimes work), but it just seemed a very vivid way to highlight the difficulties faced by people whose awareness of themselves and the world does not quite coincide with "normality".
(There's obviously a point at which confusion about or unawareness of social norms crosses over into more disturbing personality traits, but I think it's important to recognise that sometimes it is just, unfortunately, how our minds happen to be wired up, and that pity(?) can be as valid a response as concern (I realise that, in fact, that actually applies to both sides of that line, which is perhaps also worthy of consideration, and why some people do need protection (preferably hospital rather than prison, if medicinal or therapeutic treatments do not work) from themselves in order to protect others.))
"I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)
I might be an old git these days but I'm not so old as to be incapable of remembering when I was at school. Several of the girls I knew had had sex with their boy friends. This is hardly unusual. I don't think any of them had younger boyfriends. The age of consent in the UK is 16, what's the situation when both partners are under 16? Should that change when one of them has a 16th birthday? I know that some of them had been to the family planning clinic, you could get free condoms that way. Look up the Gillick case, it started because a circular to doctors said they could proscribe contraceptives to people under the age of 16 at their discretion without the parents concent.
This is totally different to some dirty old man (or woman) having sex with minors.
But many young people experiment amongst themselves and they shouldn't treated in the same way.
I find it sickening that some young people have been prosecuted for distributing child porn because they sent naked selfies to friends. Whereas adults to groom (or blackmail) kids to send them naked photos should face everything the law can throw at them.
Stallman spent decades being loud-mouthed and pigheaded about "free software" (stupid and confusing term) and not listening to everyone's view that it was a waste of time and effort.
I don't see why people expect him to be any different now.
I don't think he even understands the phrase "dude, you need to chill"
Not everyone thinks that free software is a waste of time and effort. Think where you would be without it.
XP was the expensive professional option and home users had to put up with Windows ME. The price of XP would have increased and ME would have become even worse to drive upgrades to XP. Your GPS and router would have been either Windows CE priced just under the cost of manufacturers rolling their own embedded kernels.
The fact the you have not seen how free software has benefited you shows Stallman's astounding level of incompetence at advocating it.
>The fact the you have not seen how free software has benefited you shows Stallman's astounding level of incompetence at advocating it.
Which is a good enough reason to question why the FSF reappointed him in a position that requires competence at advocacy....
If Stallman had been any good at advocacy and delivering on his vision, the world would probably have been using GNU/Unix instead of XP...
everyone's view that it was a waste of time and effort
Oh really? That was everyone's view, huh?
Did you tell Linus Torvalds about this? You know, that guy who wrote that operating system kernel that's used in most of the world's servers and who licensed it as free software.
Did you tell the Apache foundation about this? You know, the makers of the most commonly used web server in the world. The one that's free software.
Did you tell Google about this? You know, the makers of the world's most commonly used browser engine. The one that's free software.
Did you tell Microsoft about this? You know, that huge mob who make that operating system and who have been releasing a bunch of free software by for the last few years.
curiously many from Central and Eastern Europe and Russia
"Dear Regilars, if Stallman is such an above-board character, why is he supported by [people from places we regard as less enlightened]? Curious."
Yeah, I'd think myself paranoid too if this would be the first, or second, etc. time I'd seen this type of rhetorical construct. No fan of the guy, just to be clear.
... There, I said it.
No, the FSF doesn't need Stallman.
But, here’s some perspective, buried in this very long shaggy-dog-story:
I had recently been thinking: "God!! You know, Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds, between the two of them, have done so much for the world by creating the Linux environment, and the Free software ethos.".
I was --honest-to-God-- going to write to the White House proposing them for the Medal of Freedom. Why? Because thanks to Linux(, and the fact that, during the 1990s, people were throwing out old computers almost every week in my old neighborhood), I was able to set up a home network and learn enough about basic Linux systems admin, programming, and networks to eventually get a good-paying job, which, after not having had one for a long time, set me up in a stable financial situation that prevails until today. I am very grateful for the chances I got due to Free software.
(
By the way: I give my sincerest thanks to the myriad people who toil(ed) unsung to create the vast number of tools and utilities that I use for free(, and for pay too because I now can) every day. It's really touching to think that people all over the world can get access to these things and create something without having to pay by the inch, and through the nose, for things like e.g. Debian, OpenBSD, FreeCAD, SolveSpace, ImageMagick, LibreOffice, VI(M)!, Perl, PostgreSQL, Django, etc., etc. It's mind-numbing. I would not be where I am today without Linux and Free software. Thanks to all of you who made it possible. (can I have my Oscar now? :-) ...Um-Hnh-Hnhm… )
)
Then, just to get oriented, I looked up RMS, and read all the latest ... stuff: "What?!?: Aw-Shit-Un-Fscking-Believable! I know Linus can be a 'Git', but this: Aw-Jeeez-O-God-What-A-Shmuck!”.
The fact that RMS appears to be a Very Screwed-Up Person(tm), and No Moral Exemplar(tm), does not undo the great things he has done for the world by creating, and advocating, to his detriment many times, the idea of Free software. Bless him for that at least. And pray for him for the failings he has. We all have our shortcomings, and I make no excuses for his. But, don't forget what good he has done despite these failures.
Remember: If we “rm -rf”’d all the great artists, writers, and others who were also moral reprobates, we wouldn’t have much of what we prize in our culture, whichever culture you care to name. Yeah, it’s complicated.
I’m an American: This country was founded on destroying the aboriginal peoples here, and importing other people as slaves, so that it probably cost many millions of lives for America as it now stands to exist. Was it “worth it”? There’s no way to say. My ancestors came from Ireland during the potatoe famine, from Sweden, from Canada because they were oppressed Acadians; some were Cherokee, some were probably Black. Many oppressed peoples came to America to escape oppression and to make a better life for themselves. They didn’t know they came to a land which had been stolen from it’s owners. The fact that this country was stolen from it’s owners is a negative vector. The fact that this country is a beacon of freedom is a positive vector. You have to sum them up. That’t how it is with everything in the world.
The "Divine Comedy" is actually life in this world.
It's going to become reputationally damaging to be seen funding the FSF. Which may lead to its collapse.
Question is what happens then? An awful lot of copyright for OSS software has been assigned to the FSF for safe keeping. If the FSF goes belly up that copyright is unenforceable, and therefore its a free for all. The comment at the top of the file might say GPL blah blah, but it's irrelevant if the owner doesn't exist with no legal successor.
And, unlike copyright assigned to a person, there's no estate to claim the copyright for the next 75 years (or whatever). Instead, normally a failing corporate entity would be bought by another corporate entity for its stock of copyright ownership.
But who or what could or would be able to or be allowed to buy the FSF?
They could call their new club G.R.O.S.S. (which stands for Get Rid Of Slimy StallmanS, of course).
And then we'd have all the professional hand-wringers in one place, where we can keep an eye on them. I seriously doubt it'd put much of a dent in FSF membership.
Deep apologies, and much appreciation, to Bill Watterson.
Sadly, I suspect there needs to be an organisational fork for the reasons outlined in posts above this.
However, there is now a membership sifting process occurring with those who find FSF 1.0 unsustainable moving on. This leaves those who are comfortable with FSF 1.0 in place, and therefore unlikely to actively manage the change process in a sensible way.
We shall have to see what transpires.
I doubt it will "collapse". It will just continue to fade into irrelevance.
If you look at what the FSF actually does these days, it's mostly advocacy and project hosting. e.g. they host GNU C/C++ compiler (gcc) even though most commits are coming from places like Google, Red Hat, IBM etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if the return of RMS is the shove that motivates projects to move somewhere else. Even if it means forking. Even if it means the FSF moaning that their repo is the "official" one even if everyone decamps to another one and carries on their development there.
"But who or what could or would be able to or be allowed to buy the FSF?"
From whom could it be bought? I assume the FSF is the property of its members.
If the entire membership were to resign en masse then this would be a non-starter. In that case it would be abandoned property to be dealt with in whatever the legislation of the relevant state decrees. In the UK, AFAIK, this would be the Crown. Would it be the government in the US?
If a few members remained then it would very much depend on their outlook.
It may well be that provision is made in the FSF's constitution. There's also the question as to what the commercial value of the FSF's IP might be, given the terms of the GPL and the fact that in at least some cases there are alternatives, such as the BSD userland which is under a more permissive licence.
It could be an interesting situation if everyone but Stallman resigned. He'd then have sole control of those copyrights...
I can't think of any US examples, but things like this has happened before; Belgian nuns who have found themselves effectively in sole ownership of their convent who sold up to retire to the south of France: last-standing members of the Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes who have sold their lodges to housing developers.
I can't for the moment see that the copyrights themselves are worth a bean, but what could be monetarily valuable is selling commitments to not enforce copyright, which is otherwise the mechanism by which the GPL is enforced. Slip a few $ to the remnants of the FSF, the FSF turns a blind eye to non-compliant use of the copyrighted source code.
Having the copyrights owned by the US Gov could be a sensible way forward. It'd be a bit like public information - the government is obliged (and generally does a good job - e.g. see NASA) to make it available to the public, and maintain public control over ownership. Which is pretty much what was intended in the first place. Let's face it - if it were Uncle Sam enforcing copyright, that'd be a lot more legally potent than the FSF doing that.
Why would it liquidate? Its a non profit, there are no owners so it would simply cease to be. The copyright it owns would be like any other orphaned copyright - not in the public domain, but no known owner to contact to gain permission to use it. Its not like if a self published author dies leaving no heirs that his works go on the block. They just enter limbo, and no one would legally be able to republish his works so long for 75 years after his death (subject to future increases by congress)
That would be irrelevant though for the FSF, everything they released was covered under the GPL so would continue to be free to use under the same terms.
That's the point. The "stick" behind GPL is that there's a copyright owner who will sue you if the terms of the license aren't adhered to.
A third party in receipt of a compiled program but being denied the source code can't sue the supplier of the compiled program because it's not their copyright to enforce. The worst they can do is make a song and dance about it.
Why would it liquidate?
Because people calling for it to liquidate don't understand what it is.
And they're not really interested.
The people who want him gone haven't actually read up on what the FSF is or what Stallman actually said. They read an article on medium, and that's 100% of the research they did.
But you can't blame them - It's not reasonable to expect people to do things like verifying sources or reading more than one article before forming an opinion. That sounds like hard work.
I've seen so many people arguing that RMS is damaging some "employer's reputation" as if the FSF was a company that had shareholders to satiate.
I'd find it amusing if it wasn't so sad and dangerous.
> But who or what could or would be able to or be allowed to buy the FSF?
Nobody can "buy" the FSF. The FSF is a registered 501(c)(3) charity, with a legally-enforcable mandate to work in the best interest of software freedom (as defined in their very carefully written articles of association).
They could sell the copyrights they hold, but they would have to demonstrate that the buyer would be similarly mandated to work in the best interest of software freedom (now and for all time).
The FSF could exist indefinitely without funding, so long as there are people willing to volunteer to keep it alive. This is pretty much the story of FSF's history. Free Software and the FSF isn't profitable for big business, so they have always had to get by with minimal resources.
But presumably not when they are "neurologically atypical, consistent with past self-characterization as borderline autistic."
Yeah, please go on shouting your support for this man. It makes it very clear where you stand on a lot of issues.
Did you know that of mothers who learn their fetus has Down's Syndrome, over two thirds of them in the US, and over 90% of them in Europe, choose to have their pregnancy terminated?
Do you similarly despise all these women?
It was just an answer to another citation from the Gospels. If you think what is written there is right, you can't just take what you like and ignore what you don't like (you would look like a priest, otherwise)
Not always the Gospels are very kind towards bad behaviours. Wish another citation?
"And if your hand—even your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."
Looks this too apt for FSF and Stallman....
Sins are forgiven.... to those who truly repent. Which doesn't look Stallman case.
And if JS never existed, or existed but wasn't divine, the words are still good.
For those who may not understand this joke, it is based on the notion that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was without sin, so she could be qualified to cast the first stone. Her aim was off though, it should not have hit Jesus, but rather the 'woman taken in adultery'.
The notion that Mary is/was* sinless is Roman Catholic dogma.
*Many people believe that Mary never died, as such, but was bodily taken up into heaven (assumed), others believe she died before being assumed. Lots of clever people have debated this kind of stuff for centuries, so I'm just presenting the bare facts without comment.
Firstly we have to accept, whatever we feel about Stallman's private morals and statements, he was a pioneer and leader in the open source revolution and as coders or users we have a lot to be thankful for.
However, the world has moved on a lot since those days. Open source is no longer the plucky freedom fighter fighting the corporate behemoths, pretty well every corporation in the world accepts it and utilises it. Companies like Red Hat are the big companies themselves and even Microsoft has embraced it in a way that was unimaginable even a few years ago. Therefore, the role of the FSF is no longer sniping from the trenches but working out how to create links and connections with big business while maintaining its ideals.
There is no world where I can see Stallman playing a constructive part in that. It would be like inviting Che Guevara to take up a cabinet post in a democratically elected government. Booch was dead right when he said that if the FSF cannot do without Stallman it is no longer a progressive organization, just a cult
"Firstly we have to accept, whatever we feel about Stallman's private morals and statements, he was a pioneer and leader in the open source revolution and as coders or users we have a lot to be thankful for."
Free software, not open source. RMS has nothing to do with open source.
Read up on your history - some of us remember it.
Stallman had strong views on freedom for software, but there was a lot of debate at the time between many people about these concepts. He had a massive amount to do with open source and exactly what the difference is between it and free software. Until Stallman, most open source software was issued (on Usenet, of course) either without any sort of statement about copyright or licence, or an explicit assignment to the public domain. Without Stallman we would not understand the difference between the different types of FOSS, and the need for licences and copyrights, like we do today.
"Firstly we have to accept, whatever we feel about Stallman's private morals and statements, he was a pioneer and leader in the open source revolution and as coders or users we have a lot to be thankful for."
He wasn't the pioneer - BSD was the pioneer. His coding is frankly, shit. I don't know if they've updated it since I read it, but the GNU coding standards encouraged some really bad practices. Those standards emanated from Stallman. The GNU code that he was primarily responsible for was - in Stallman's own words - not meant to be any good, just to be his definition of "free". So we have GCC with it's deliberately non-modular structure and Emacs which is an utter mess. Both have been forked multiple times to try and fix their deficiencies, with the official GNU versions languishing for years until the GNU maintainers grudgingly accept they've lost the battle and merge considerable portions of the forks.
"So we have GCC with it's deliberately non-modular structure and Emacs which is an utter mess."
Oh, really? Emacs is _not_ an "utter mess". It is not an exemplary piece of well written software, but for crying out loud, it's 45 years old. It was superbly well designed, and decades later is still in use, maintainable, and maintained. (i'm an Emacs maintainer.) Emacs is also superbly user friendly, if not learner friendly, and was for decades one of the very few serious editors there was.
And yes, Richard Stallman is still involved in Emacs's development, and I'm happy that he is. His behaviour on the developers' mailing list is entirely correct, and he has this habit about being right in difficult questions to do with software. Maybe this is why powerful forces wish to marginalize him.
Do bullies like Red Hat, ever consider where their billion dollar per year turnover came from? It didn't appear out of thin air, it resulted from the vision, talents, and hard work of RMS and the people he inspired. It may well be that such a project could only have come from somebody like Stallman. It would seem that gratitude, and not just a little, is called for.
the role of the FSF is no longer sniping from the trenches but working out how to create links and connections with big business while maintaining its ideals.
Says who?
Not if they want my donations. If they want my money, they'll promote the interests of free software. Which is mutually exclusive with "developing connections with big business" as far as I can see.
“Curiously many from Central and Eastern Europe and Russia”
Oh I see. There’s a hierarchy then: don’t let others think you might say something “against women” comes before the whole not being a racialist thing.
I suppose that if I were from the US, my two enormous adenoids and me would be very offended, take it on to twatter and demand(!!1!) the removal of El Reg.
Being born in southern Europe and currently living in the central sort, I’ll just make fun of you a little bit, and then read on.
Peace.
I think the point is that the Russian Troll Factories - very much a real thing - have form when it comes to pushing for objectives that increase internal division in "the west". Simultaneous support of BLM and the NRA; support for Trump, Brexit, Marine Le Pen, that sort of thing.
I certainly didn't read this as "eastern european support is less important", I read it as it's likely an organised campaign from some group with a motive.
Does seem that way though there's nothing to really conclude at this stage.
Maybe RMS has a bigger-than-expected following in Russia?
The uneven distribution of signatories' location leaves us curious. That's it in a nutshell. If there was an unexpected level of support in another part of the world -- China or Canada or Dubai, wherever -- we would note that as well.
C.
Now I’m curious: just why does that seem that way?
Is it that the name Nicolaj sounds more foreign that Todd to English-speaking ears?
Is it that you think that in central, eastern Europe and Russia Kremlin undercover officials recruit the youth in the streets to post with their real name and location in support of a fat hippie?
Or are you implying somehow that in the regions listed above there are less developed culture and feelings?
Or is it because it’s cold and smells funny there?
Or what?
Also: did you notice that the “3000+“ that would like to free(rms); rms = NULL; seem to come from the United States? What do we make of that?
I suspect the level of support is actual, natural support, regardless of which part of the word it is coming from.
It is the vilification process that is being driven by forces unknown. It's easier to whip up hatred than it is to nurture support. People with clues as to human behavio(u)r can easily use this fact to gain an advantage in any given political setting.
So the question becomes "Who will benefit the most from this?"
I think the point is that the Russian Troll Factories - very much a real thing - have form when it comes to pushing for objectives that increase internal division in "the west". Simultaneous support of BLM and the NRA; support for Trump, Brexit, Marine Le Pen, that sort of thing.
From what I've heard there's no need for the Russian trolls to stoke up support for her. It seems that Macron, the other political elites in France, and the European Commission are doing a good enough job of that themselves with no help from the East.
Stallman is arrogant, opinionated and pig-headed. Used in the correct circumstances and at the right time, they work well, launching free software and pushing it required a single-minded and determined individual. In other matters he likes to think that simply because he got one thing right that he is therefore right about every topic. He's entitled to his own opinions but he needs to know that there are consequences.
Yes, we all know kids will start having sex from the age their bits start working properly but the law is very clear and it's there for a good reason to protect those vulnerable and immature kids who would otherwise be taken advantage of. Therefore while Stallman may wish to express his ill thought out opinions about the matter, in this case his single-minded attitude, his inability to see the wider picture for the whole of a very, very complex society simply makes him look like an idiot at best and a peadophile at worst.
In order to be a leader or promoter of worldwide organisation requires tact and understanding of a diverse audience, that includes gender and race and I'm afraid Stallman simply doesn't possess the required skills and should be cast and left adrift.
I think this is where the FSF have really shot themselves in the foot.
Need an ally, a thinker, but someone a little bit dodgy? Time for a technical committee, or academics forum, a think tank, or other such thing that is slightly at arms length. Close enough to be associated to get the credit, If something fishy turns up, the plausible deniability kicks in and most (never all) bad smell stays away.
This can let the board take care of "business" type matters while letting the more creative types get on with their part.
Whenever there is yet another horrible story about Stallman I always think back with a smile to a conversion I had with someone from MIT back in 1986. They were visiting the company I worked for in California to add a feature to a commercial product and when I heard they were from MIT I asked them jokingly - so you know Slallman then? The guy visibly shuddered and replied - I have an office down the corridor from that d*ickhead. So I replied - That bad then? The only comment in reply was - Even worse...
Now the punchline to the story is that in the summer of 1986 GCC was still a mess of badly written 0.9 beta (ish) code yet even on the West Coast two thousand miles away from MIT Stallman had already established a reputation as a totally nasty piece of garbage. A horrible human being. There were some unpleasant people around at the time but none where in the same league as Stallman for sheer personal nastiness.
There was nothing original about Open Source. The idea had been kicking around since the 1960's and had been pretty well defined by the late 1970's. Every single statement of Stallmans at the time was unoriginal and derivative but like all psychopaths he was great at claiming it was all his own ideas. It was nt. As many others have pointed out over the decades some of the key ideas behind open source etc would have had an easier acceptance if it wasnt for the unrelenting nastiness, the never ending grandstanding, the utterly nauseating self-aggrandizement that Stallman has always engaged in.
The world would be a much better place without people like Stallman. You should look at his code sometime. The stuff from the 1980's. Its really really bad. Embarrassingly so.
Well, I must say, you tell a very interesting vague and unsubstantiated story with zero concrete accusations told third-hand by an anonymous source on an internet forum.
And you even had the courage to label him "psychopath" without posting a copy of your medical credentials and notes from your sessions with him. Bold.
I'm totally going to start burning Stallman effigies and calling for him to have his life's work taken away from him based on this. Seems pretty solid to me.
Grady Booch, IBM Fellow and chief scientist for software engineering, scoffed at the FSF's claims about its dedication to fighting for software freedom. "Saying it does not make it so," he said via Twitter. "If you are so dependent on RMS, then you have a cult, not an enduring, vibrant organization."
Says the pioneer of the cult of UML ;)
I do not choose to associate with RMS, or with the FSF if they insist on sticking with him. I used to send in actual money to the FSF; this has stopped. I am simply no longer supporting them. I am confident that they won’t notice the pittance that I no longer send them.
I will observe those who do support RSM and FSF, and evaluate my response based on the situation. It is quite likely that I will be dropping support for other persons or entities.
This is a personal choice. _My_ personal choice. I do not insist that others drop support too. I merely point out that it is quite likely that those who don’t may get to carry on without me. No doubt my contributions, monetary and otherwise, are so minor that they won’t be missed. That is not the point. The point is that I will not support RMS and the FSF. I will, if necessary, move my systems to software which has as little to do with RMS and the FSF as possible. This may mean using commercial software rather than FOSS. So be it.
Those who take the time to look up my posting record will see that I am NOT a member of the woke SJW brigade. However, there are certain matters which I deal with on principles. Adults having sex with children is one of them. Another is zoophilia; a look at my handle shows that I quite like wolves. I even have a wolf bitch among the animals sharing quarters with me. (You would NOT believe the paperwork required for that. And while it’s not true that it’s impossible to house train wolves, it is quite difficult.) Baroness Margaret Hilda (yes, named for a certain greengrocer’s daughter) is big, beautiful, and considers herself to be the second ranking female, behind only She Who Must Be Obeyed, in the household. (Several of the cats may disagree. They don’t do that near the Baroness. Or, come to think of it, near SWMBO.) I can clearly imagine her reaction to anyone attempting, umm, ‘advances’, and severely annoying an adult wolf is a Very Bad Idea(™). Now, the Baroness is far better equipped to defend herself than many other animals, but the issue of consent remains… and is basically the same issue as with underage humans. I refuse, on principle, to support anyone who tries to minimize the issue. That would include RMS. And if the FSF supports him, that includes them.
I will not force anyone to drop support; others have the right to freely associate with whoever they want to. _I_ have the right to freely associate, or to not associate, with anyone I want to. Or don’t want to. I chose to not associate with RMS and the FSF. YMMV.
The issue isn't so much that RMS re-joined the FSF (although it's really not advisable), or even the Minsky comments (where as far as I can see he may be technically correct, if tone deaf and unable to see any context or issues with association).
The issues are that he came back and his first action was to deliberately refuse to apologise, and then despite the backlash there's no response for a month. There's plenty of evidence of his behaviour online, and I've heard a number of stories to back this up from people who are into open source and have personally met Stallman, from years ago.
You're allowed to make mistakes and change. However when there's no evidence that you've changed, no real apology, or if you're unable to change, perhaps being part of a public organisation is not for you?
I haven't read up about whatever comments Stallman is supposed to have made. However if he did suggest sex with young girls is somehow ok, I find that repulsive; especially given I have a 10 year old daughter.
However I'm also really not liking this current trend around people making everything so political. We need to find the balance.
Albeit hearsay.
I was involved with an SF convention in Massachusetts in the Boston area in the early 1990s, and his name came up as a guest.
It made sense, what was then called "Free" Software was a thing, he was a local, and there were a lot of computer geeks, including some FSF employees who went to the convention.
I don't recall how it ended up, but I do recall people saying, "Make sure that his staff interactions do not involve young women, and we need to make sure that he does not hit on underage attendees."
This is NOT direct knowledge, and in those unenlightened days there was no outrage over his behavior, it was just an acknowledgement that he was high maintenance for these reasons.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
