Director, deputy director, CTO of Free Software Foundation quit after Stallman installation Three key staff members of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) have resigned following the organization’s decision to reinstall Richard Stallman as a board member. Executive director John Sullivan, deputy director John Hsieh, and chief technology officer Ruben Rodriguez all quit at a board meeting on Monday. A short …
Stay classy, attack his argument, don't smear jake because his view is different from yours.
Especially don't use such abhorrent allegations, when simply standing up for weirdo having "wrongthink".
RMS has Q to answer about his behaviour towards adult women, that's a real thing with attestation.
Conversly writing "wrongthink" in a poorly phrased manner devoid of the instinctive note of revulsion that neuro-typicals would feel, is thoughtcrime.
It's interesting that you are outraged by what he "thought/wrote" rather than publically did.
I'm not defending RMS. But him pestering women is an actual thing, that should be addressed, his opinions can be ignored if you dislike them.
He has contributed, and the world (our part at least) knows his name and more importantly his ideas.
You don't see fit to put a name to your own ideas.
Your attack of the mildest rebuke with baseless insinuation, suggests you view the concept of harming children as some sort of trump card in argument, rather than a wound for the future and a stain on the past.
Do better, ffs.
... one of his ex-girlfriends who he'd made paranoid that he was snooping on her. That was 20 years ago. I had to check her computer for snoopware, etc. and didn't find any. But whatever he did to her was hella serious. I had been a fan of his up to that point, and the Epstein stance simply confirmed that girlfriend's experience with him.
FSF will soon stand for Farewall, Software Foundation!
@Jake. I dont think Occam's Razor says what you think it says. The simplest explanation, with plenty of "prior art" to back it up, is that Stallman is/was has some douchebag opinions towards women - particularly young ones. It takes very little to assume that attitude bleeds over into actions.
So the board regrets it but not enough to undo it? I guess any board that would let RMS rejoin will be too stubborn to admit they made a mistake, and given RMS said he isn't going to resign, I guess the only way he is leaving is that someone kicks him out, and clearly that won't be the current board planing to do that.
It is not on me to provide evidence, it is on the accusers. In almost every case, the claims against him are based on misreporting, misrepresentations, hearsay, and accusations given without evidence.
From what I can tell, the only believable accusations are that he made some women "uncomfortable". Nevertheless, that is not a reason for such persecution IMO - even in cases where such discomfort were not caused by their own assumptions (eg. the mattress), misunderstandings (eg. language pedantry) or biases (eg. asking someone out while not being very physically attractive).
Really ? And in many jurisdictions you've have grounds for taking your now ex employer to the cleaners for unfair dismissal.
So what exactly has he done ?
No, not the suggestion that he believes in the rape of children - because what he wrote does not actually support that IF you read and comprehend what he actually wrote rather than the biased misquotes being used by the lynch mob.
And no, not the suggestion that the girl in the Epstein business was willing - because, again, he didn't write any such thing IF you read what he actually wrote and not the biased misquotes being used by the lynch mob.
So far, the only accusations that stand up to any scrutiny are that a) he's a personality vacuum and b) he's not a nice guy to be around if you're a woman. That latter bit may or may not be true - I don't know, I wasn't there, I can only go by what is being said/written about him. So it could be fair to criticise him for that - but mostly that's not what is being used against him, it's the outright lies being made up by deliberate selective out of context quotes that are being used.
Stallman made a few stupid comments, possibly illustrating stupid opinions ... but is this treatment of a stupid person any improvement? When you do stupid things then you need to work at improving things, thus reversing the stupidity, not recovering from it. But this whole thing just illustrates how rich people think they can just skip over their stupidity and move on without any consequences - as a result the rest of the board is saying, "Damn it, we're not going to be that stupid."
Hopefully this will not damage the FSF in the long term but it's a mess right now.
Apparently you missed the first several acts.
Run down one of the long form articles that has the decades long thread of creepy posts regarding consent, the law, and the underage. Those were his first several strikes on his "your not allowed to be management" card. The toxic work environment claims, living in the office, that's a batch more. The last blowout where he was forced out the first time was more than straw that broke the camels back, he had already broken the camel into four or five pieces by that point.
This has nothing to do with the decades of programming work and advocacy Stallman put in over the years. This has everything to do with limiting the damage that someone who has grown detached from the reality of running a non-profit organization in the real world. The open software movement must address the decades of looking the other way, and actually start changing thing things, not keep making empty promises to do better. Putting people like this back in senior management positions without any real change on their part is the opposite of that.
Nina Reiser's murderer is up for parole in a couple of years. Her husband Hans murdered her, and after trying to cover his tracks, losing at trial, and being convicted of 1st degree murder, he was given a plea bargain by investigators in return for him leading them to her body. Despite being the subject of several long form articles and at least one documentary, she does not have her own Wiki entry. She is treated as a footnote on her murderers webpage. Because he was a prominent bay area software coder. Her husband was another of Software Libre's legendary ego's getting into deranged flame wars with other devs and and threatening people. 15-20 years ago those warnings weren't heard and a woman died. What's changed? Stallman probably isn't going to kill anyone, but that's not really the bar is it? If the board can't see that, then Stallman isn't the only leadership problem that needs to be addressed.
This isn't me-too or cancel culture.
On his personal website stallman.org he once wrote "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.”
We joked about Musk and 'pedo' during the submarine incident but Stallman is no joke.
First of all, the Free Software Foundation is a foundation under US law and in US law you can be fired for your opinions. The US concept of Free Speech protects against government interference in expressing your opinion but offers no protection in private matters such as between an organisation and its employees. Here in Europe the concept of Freedom of Expression is often a bit more all-encompassing, but is also not without limits.
Secondly, without wishing to make any statement about the specific RMS case, there comes a point where the opinions of a prominent figure in an organisation start to reflect badly on the organisation, especially when these opinions are made publicly and outside of the normal remit of an organisation.
Now, if a prominent FSF board member admits to being a Chelsea fan then that is outside of the FSF remit (and obviously shameful) but no grounds for serious consideration. Opinions about sex with minors is a different topic and that is where someone would set foot on thin ice. The court of public opinion is a harsh one.
"First of all, the Free Software Foundation is a foundation under US law and in US law you can be fired for your opinions." - ac
Yes, but in 1 state this is only during the probationary period, and you can find the rest of the restrictions that make your statement false here: https://www.betterteam.com/at-will-employment
The US concept of Free Speech protects against government interference in expressing your opinion but offers no protection in private matters such as between an organisation and its employees.
You're wrong about the First Amendment.
However, in a case like this I'm reasonably sure (though IANAL) that the 1st would not apply, particularly not to the question of membership on a foundation's board of directors, which is not a normal employment situation in any case. Membership on a foundation board in the US would generally be controlled by the foundation's bylaws and by applicable law such as the Tax Reform Act of 1969, assuming we're talking about a registered private foundation or public charity under 501(c)(3) or similar.
I don't know what the FSF's legal status is, or how their governance works, but unless their bylaws are strange indeed, it's unlikely a board member has much protection against being dismissed by the rest of the board or by the membership, if the membership has voting rights.
Though in some (NOT all) US states its OK for person of 14 (or even younger) to have sex with someone of similar age (though quite tight constraints on how close in age they are) i.e. means teens of similar age unlikely to get legal hassle even if below the nominal age of consent. Note this is not a licence for a much older person to do anything as that's still massively illegal, its just a protection for teens fooling around with other teens really - essentially acknowledging possibility of teens wanting sex at age below age of consent.
Shows the need to consider any age / power imbalances - lots of teens have sex with other teens (both similar age & below "official" age of consent) but that is totally different from someone considerably older going with a 14 year old.
Context is everything
Please note the bit where he says "not indiscriminately". He's not recommending that you shag 14 year olds. He's pointing out that 14 year olds can, and do, shag each other. It's normal, and it's natural. You can't argue with the onset of puberty. If you try, their hormones will laugh at you and they will do it anyway. There is a reason that Juliet (in Romeo and Juliet) was not quite 14.
Context matters, people.
What possible context could justify those comments about sex with 14 year olds
Which comments ? The ones he actually made, and did at some point retract ? Or the ones being made up by the lynch mod ?
Because, if you read what he actually wrote in full and stop to actually think rather than just go "child abuse, must be a bad 'un" then you'll realise that he did not at any point suggest what he is being accused of suggesting. And bear in mind that 14 (the arbitrary age he picked) is above the age of consent in some countries, and only just below the age of consent in many countries that we consider "civilised". The big debate should not be about what some arbitrary - and it is very arbitrary - number written in a statute book should be, but what truly constitutes consent once there is a question of one party having influence over another. Simply put, much of the aggression seems to be into someone asking if that arbitrary number (which varies considerably around the world, and even within the US) is a reasonable number to have chosen.
And remember that things change. Back in ancient Roman times a "girl" would be considered an old maid if not married with a family on the way at 14 - but then life expectancy was only into something like the 30s.
But I don't expect any rational response to this.
Irrelevant. The list of those who were thoroughly repellant human beings with which I would not go near on a personal level but who were very good at what they did is a long one. Wagner was a thoroughly evil man; he was also an extremely talented composer who wrote some of the greatest works of the late 19th century. We should boycott The Ring Cycle because Wagner was a sick puppy? Ford was a fascist; his methods revolutionized industry in the US and the world. We should boycott anything made by assembly line methods, especially cars, particularly Fords, because Ford was a racist ant-semite? Newton stole credit for other's work, most notably the calculus. We should ignore the laws of motion or gravitation because he was an unscrupulous thieving bastard?
YHes, Stallman has done a lot of work which is of great benefit to a lot of people. And yes, he is not someone I'd willingly associate with. Not after his remarks about 14-year-olds, as noted upthread here. And yes, if I had been contributing money to the FSF, I'd stop doing that. I would not like to have my money contributing to him. The bad outweighs the good, in my opinion. Yours may differ. I would not dream of preventing you from supporting him, just as I would not dream of stopping opera fans from going to see some Wagner. But I'm not supporting him.
Actually, that is EXACTLY what this current cancel-culture fetish is heading towards.
Right now, today, as I speak, the loud-mouthed mob is in the process of trying to convince everyone to rename everything named after Sir Francis Drake, because he supported slavery. They also want his name expunged from the history books in schools. And that's just one example.
Mind you, the idiots haven't really thought it out ... For example, the town of Fairfax down in Marin renamed Sir Francis Drake Blvd because of this ... But they completely ignore the fact that their entire town was named after Charles Snowden Fairfax, 10th Lord Fairfax of Cameron ... who was born into a slave-holding family owning acrage in Virginia.
https://mwhittingt.medium.com/now-sir-francis-drake-is-getting-canceled-8a4635c5d029
https://www.newsbreak.com/california/san-francisco/government/2184639254516/cancel-culture-is-alive-and-well
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/A-major-Bay-Area-street-is-getting-renamed-as-16022646.php
https://www.ci.larkspur.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/12769/71-and-72-Public-Comment---McQuaid-2
https://www.marincounty.org/-/media/files/maringov/board-actions/2021/march/21030912bossfdbltr.pdf?la=en
is this enough?
All of those links are about renaming streets and a school. Nothing about removing him from the history books.
The only people I've seen who actually want to censor history are the anti-woke brigade. As soon as any of the UK's real history is discussed, warts and all, they claim it's pandering to BLM and the 'woke agenda'. Just look at some of the social media comments about the recent "Britain's most historic towns" series on Channel 4. I saw some pretty horrid abuse thrown at Prof Alice Roberts on Twitter for including references to the slave trade in the series. They seem to want to brush all that under the carpet because it was 'years ago'.
From what I can see, far from wanting these people removed from text books, people want the unquestioning admiration of historical figures stopped (i.e. buildings and streets named after them, statues etc.) and the actual real history to be taught more, not less.
"Nothing about removing him from the history books."
And now I can't find links to what I was talking about.
It was on the news on DearOldTelly, early last August[0], for about a week on and off. It consisted of several supposed "experts" on childhood learning stating outright that we must completely erase all aspects of our racist history (or at least hide it from the children and other non-researchers), because teaching kids what their Great Grandparents were up to is actively promoting institutional racism. A couple even went on to claim this was a form of child abuse. I've heard the suggestion on and off in relation to Sir Francis Drake, Fr. Junípero Serra, and other contentious historical figures ever since.
I've dropped notes to my local news stations, asking if they have any archives of this. If I hear back, I'll post links.
It reminded me of the Texas and Tennessee branches of the Tea Party's attempts to re-write history books to white-wash slavery about 15 years ago. I couldn't believe I was hearing virtually the same thing from supposed liberals.
First they burn books. Then they kill people.
[0] The only reason I know the rough date is because I was canning the first round of last year's tomatoes and had the television news on as background radiation. When I heard it, I damn near dropped my knife!
Yawn. The hysteria over "cancel culture" is exactly the same as the hysteria over "political correctness" during the Culture Wars of the late '80s and early '90s. You "cancel culture!" pearl-clutchers should take heart from the obvious fact that the Culture Wars clearly did nothing to temper the strain of virulent know-nothing conservatism in the US. There will be no shortage of panicking idiots fretting over "tradition" in the next generation.
A bigger problem is the "cancel culture" dogwhistle is, of course, deployed in an effort to squelch counter-speech, not to protect it, even as its fans drape themselves in the mantle of protecting offensive expression. Masnick and others have done a fine job of documenting and explaining this.
In short, bitching about "cancel culture" just demonstrates immaturity of thinking and a poor grasp of recent US cultural history (or a Hawley-style mendacious and mercenary attempt at demagoguery, or both). Seeing an adult engage in it is a bit of an embarrassing spectacle.
This post has been deleted by its author
The FSF is the copyright holder and steward of the GPL family of licenses, and have the explicit right of releasing new versions of the GPL licenses which in many cases could be retroactively applied (see: "or later" clauses). Thus the FSF cannot practically be replaced without relicensing all (L/A)GPL software to another license governed by a different foundation.
Apparently the articles of the FSF were written in such a way that, even if the entire board were replaced by evil corporate replicants, they would still be duty-bound to work in the best interests of Free Software. But even so, I would much rather the FSF stay in the same ideological hands as it always has, and anyone who wants a different focus for the FSF to start their own organisation.
I've worked in tech in a variety of roles including development and some serious mainframe tech roles for a manufacture.
Starting out there was a 40% 60% split in the dev teams I worked in, that has gone down and down with every decade. I've made part of my approach as I moved to management roles making sure my teams were accepting of diversity, that did lead me to have to challenge some of my own biases (not least never trust someone who wont get drunk with you). The appalling thing about the conversation in this thread is that not one other commenter has raised the issue of how this makes our female colleagues feel. This isn't the 1970s when some areas were the wild west, we are an established profession. What we do is important and affects peoples lives but if we do not have an inclusive workforce then we will continue to develop products which just work for white males with no disabilities. There are too many examples of large developments or even whole technologies which demonstrate developer bias, just look at the whole debacle around AI face recognition training discriminating against non-white people. If we do not work together to make the teams we work in comfortable places for non-white people women, trans and others those teams will become irrelevant. If you don't want to do this don't be too surprised when the products you work on become the next myspace or Yahoo.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
