Richard Stallman's Return Denounced by the EFF, Tor Project, Mozilla, and the Creator of Rust (itwire.com) 640
Sunday IT Wire counted up the number of signatories on two open letters, one opposing Richard Stallman's return to the FSF and one supporting it.
- The pro-Stallman letter had 3,632 individual signers
- The anti-Stallman letter had 2,812 individual signers (plus 48 companies and organizations).
But the question of Stallman's leadership has now also arisen in the GCC community:
A long-time developer of GCC, the compiler created by the GNU Project and used in Linux distributions, has issued a call for the removal of Free Software Founder Richard Stallman from the GCC steering committee. Nathan Sidwell [also a software engineer at Facebook] said in a post directed to the committee that if it was unwilling to remove Stallman, then the panel should explain why it was not able to do so.
Stallman is also the founder of the GNU Project and the original author of GCC.
"RMS [Stallman] is no longer a developer of GCC, the most recent commit I can find regards SCO in 2003," Sidwell wrote in a long email. "Prior to that there were commits in 1997, but significantly less than 1994 and earlier. GCC's implementation language is now C++, which I believe RMS neither uses nor likes.
"When was RMS' most recent positive input to the GCC project? Even if it was recent and significant, that doesn't mean his toxic behaviour should be accepted."
Meanwhile, the following groups have also issued statements opposing Stallman's return to the FSF:
- Mozilla: We can't demand better of the internet if we don't demand better of our leaders, colleagues and ourselves. We're with the Open Source Diversity Community, Outreachy & the Software Conservancy project in supporting this petition.
- The Tor Project: The Tor Project is joining calls for Richard M. Stallman to be removed from board, staff, volunteer, and other leadership positions in the FOSS community, including the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project.
Rust creator Graydon Hoare: He's been saying sexist shit & driving women away for decades. He can't change, the FSF board knows it, is sending a "sexism doesn't matter" message. This is bad leadership and I'm sad about all of it, agree with calls to resign.
If someone is a public leader their public behaviour matters. I don't criticize private individuals here and I don't think twitter-justice is especially nuanced. But this is so far over the line, such a stupid and tone-deaf choice, and it is about community leadership.
The EFF: We at EFF are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019. We are also disappointed that this was done despite no discernible steps taken by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was belatedly conveyed to FSF's staff and supporters.
Stallman's re-election sends a wrong and hurtful message to free software movement, as well as those who have left that movement because of Stallman's previous behavior.
Free software is a vital component of an open and just technological society: its key institutions and individuals cannot place misguided feelings of loyalty above their commitment to that cause. The movement for digital freedom is larger than any one individual contributor, regardless of their role. Indeed, we hope that this moment can be an opportunity to bring in new leaders and new ideas to the free software movement.
We urge the voting members of the FSF1 to call a special meeting to reconsider this decision, and we also call on Stallman to step down: for the benefit of the organization, the values it represents, and the diversity and long-term viability of the free software movement as a whole.
Finally, the Free Software Foundation itself has now pinned the following tweet at the top of its Twitter feed: No LibrePlanet organizers (staff or volunteer), speakers, award winners, exhibitors, or sponsors were made aware of Richard Stallman's announcement until it was public.
- The pro-Stallman letter had 3,632 individual signers
- The anti-Stallman letter had 2,812 individual signers (plus 48 companies and organizations).
But the question of Stallman's leadership has now also arisen in the GCC community:
A long-time developer of GCC, the compiler created by the GNU Project and used in Linux distributions, has issued a call for the removal of Free Software Founder Richard Stallman from the GCC steering committee. Nathan Sidwell [also a software engineer at Facebook] said in a post directed to the committee that if it was unwilling to remove Stallman, then the panel should explain why it was not able to do so.
Stallman is also the founder of the GNU Project and the original author of GCC.
"RMS [Stallman] is no longer a developer of GCC, the most recent commit I can find regards SCO in 2003," Sidwell wrote in a long email. "Prior to that there were commits in 1997, but significantly less than 1994 and earlier. GCC's implementation language is now C++, which I believe RMS neither uses nor likes.
"When was RMS' most recent positive input to the GCC project? Even if it was recent and significant, that doesn't mean his toxic behaviour should be accepted."
Meanwhile, the following groups have also issued statements opposing Stallman's return to the FSF:
- Mozilla: We can't demand better of the internet if we don't demand better of our leaders, colleagues and ourselves. We're with the Open Source Diversity Community, Outreachy & the Software Conservancy project in supporting this petition.
- The Tor Project: The Tor Project is joining calls for Richard M. Stallman to be removed from board, staff, volunteer, and other leadership positions in the FOSS community, including the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project.
Rust creator Graydon Hoare: He's been saying sexist shit & driving women away for decades. He can't change, the FSF board knows it, is sending a "sexism doesn't matter" message. This is bad leadership and I'm sad about all of it, agree with calls to resign.
If someone is a public leader their public behaviour matters. I don't criticize private individuals here and I don't think twitter-justice is especially nuanced. But this is so far over the line, such a stupid and tone-deaf choice, and it is about community leadership.
The EFF: We at EFF are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019. We are also disappointed that this was done despite no discernible steps taken by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was belatedly conveyed to FSF's staff and supporters.
Stallman's re-election sends a wrong and hurtful message to free software movement, as well as those who have left that movement because of Stallman's previous behavior.
Free software is a vital component of an open and just technological society: its key institutions and individuals cannot place misguided feelings of loyalty above their commitment to that cause. The movement for digital freedom is larger than any one individual contributor, regardless of their role. Indeed, we hope that this moment can be an opportunity to bring in new leaders and new ideas to the free software movement.
We urge the voting members of the FSF1 to call a special meeting to reconsider this decision, and we also call on Stallman to step down: for the benefit of the organization, the values it represents, and the diversity and long-term viability of the free software movement as a whole.
Finally, the Free Software Foundation itself has now pinned the following tweet at the top of its Twitter feed: No LibrePlanet organizers (staff or volunteer), speakers, award winners, exhibitors, or sponsors were made aware of Richard Stallman's announcement until it was public.
Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Stallman isn't a baby, you don't need to keep coddling him like he's a spoiled child who can do no wrong.
Now that tech consumership has become mainstream and companies are trying to lock this mass tech adoption down, the aims of Free Software are more important than ever.
If Stallman is unable or unwilling to take this responsibility seriously and learn to make public statements in a way that won't turn off vast swathes of tech and software users, then he should step aside as a public figurehead for a huge and important organization and allow someone who can to fill that role.
His ego and insistence that he has to be on the top is now getting in the way of free software and hampering the work of the FSF.
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Interesting)
If Stallman is unable or unwilling to take this responsibility seriously and learn to make public statements in a way that won't turn off vast swathes of tech and software users
Some people are not fans of self-censorship, especially if it's for no good reason.
he should step aside as a public figurehead
I don't see him as "a public figurehead". I see him as the guy who sees problems two decades before they happen. You can't just "appoint" people like that, or replace them at will with someone else; they appear in the population and that's it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you think none of the following are good reasons to self-censor?
Stallman fails all of these, and doesn't seem to care.
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Informative)
KDE developers: https://chani.wordpress.com/20... [wordpress.com] (be sure to follow and read the link to Lefty's blog)
Apple fans: https://readwrite.com/2011/10/... [readwrite.com]
Thomas Bushnell, who relates that lots of other people recognized Stallman's behavior as inappropriate even 20+ years ago: https://medium.com/@thomas.bus... [medium.com]
FSF Europe: https://fsfe.org/news/2021/new... [fsfe.org]
Try looking for facts once in a while rather than just calling names, and you might recognize that too many people protected RMS from the consequences of his own behavior for too long.
Re: Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Leaders must have decorum" is exactly why corporate society is the way it is. We need movements like the FSF specifically because of people constantly knuckling under to moral panics created by the elite. Stallman needs to stay because he's the canary that proves the FSF isn't yet controlled opposition.
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Insightful)
When someone angrily asserted a falsehood, he corrected them. That was his great sin, pointing out a mistake.
You say the aims of the FSF are more important than ever, so why not ask instead who is trying to use Stallman as an excuse to tear it apart and why they need him out of the way. Or ask why people would be getting in the way of the FSF, punishing it, because somebody told the truth.
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What public statements? I though the whole hoopla was about semi-private statements that were leaked publicly.
And not even terrible statements like defending Epstein or violent or coercive rape, which so many people are accusing him of. Just that knowing his deceased friend as well as he (thought he) did, he believed it was far more likely that *even if* he actually slept with one of Epstein's girls, it was unlikely that it was assault, or that he applied any coercion himself, or even realized there was coercion involved. Perhaps there's some rose-colored glasses in play, though the fact that there was only ever a completely unsubstantiated accusation and there is in fact some (questionable) evidence against it ever happening at all could easily mean the entire thing is a purely hypothetical scenario anyway.
And then there's his comments about it being rather silly to equate statutory rape to violent rape, which he later even mostly walked back after some conversations that apparently convinced him there are actually some serious really problems with statutory rape. And I think most every intellectually honest person can agree that it's pretty silly that an act that's considered rape on one side of an imaginary line can be perfectly fine if you walk five feet to the other side of the line instead - at least one side of that line has issues, and it sounds like he came around to believing it was the side that said it was fine that had problems.
Had Stallman raped someone, or even suggested such assault or coercion was ever acceptable, I'd say go ahead and burn the bastard at the stake. But he didn't - he just pointed out that there's a lot of gray areas around the edges of the law, and objected to his friend being publicly painted as having committed a far more violent crime than he was even accused of.
The fact that there's so much hoopla about nothing but some words makes me very suspicious that this whole thing is motivated by some people that want to make sure his uncompromising free software idealism is removed from influencing future versions of the GPL. And the fact that so many of the public objections are coming from Free Software related groups that have long been seen as having been corrupted by corporate interests does nothing to relieve my suspicions.
Re: Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You can get someone as dedicated to FSF principals as stallman and not be a douche bag.
I cringed hearing him talk 15 years ago. It isn't just the stance but how he says it.
He should have enjoyed retirement. And let the FSF finally grow up.
Re: Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The idiot who lost her mind over being corrected may have an adult body, but she is no grown-up. No grown-ups are both informed on the details and on her side.
Re: Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How many of the folks here at least made a "stinky face" when former President Obama called himself a programmer
I'll be happy to call someone a "programmer" if they write a one-line batch script. It's not an exclusive club and it doesn't need to be treated as such.
If you go for a run every morning, you can call yourself a runner even if you'll never be Usain Bolt. The culture around computer literacy is changing and it's time to stop with the gatekeeping.
Re: (Score:3)
Stallman is the nerdiest of all nerds. And he has few social skills. He is cringe-worthy, even to other nerds. The fact that he is a leader at all is a surprise in the first place, and is only explained by his dedication to his core set of beliefs (or his core obsession). I don't see signs that he has above average organizational and project management skills, or skills in persuasion, or the ability to herd cats, or other things you would associate with leadership. His writings are rambling, and there are
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like a false dichotomy, and is ill specified at the same time.
Firstly almost everyone compromises on principles sooner or later. Even RMS (trying to find loopholes in his own code of conduct for example). Actually he's been pretty pragmatic over the years about using proprietary unix to forward the cause of Free Software.
No one's perfect, but someone insufficiently principled would be useless. On the other hand a vacuum of charisma won't get any other people on board, and likewise a charismatic but
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:4, Interesting)
One with principles. Just look at the mobile landscape to see where not sticking to principles brings us, everything is "Open Source" yet everything is locked down and you can't even boot your own OS. Or Firefox where they claim to be about privacy, yet load the browser full of cloud stuff you can't even easily get rid of.
That said, I don't consider Stallman a good leader in this day and age. His principles are fundamentally correct, but he is stuck in the 90s. The software world has changed dramatically since then. More often than not, you no longer even own the hardware the software is running on, not just due to evil cooperation, but simply due to the way networked services work. The principles of Free Software fall apart in that case, as even having access to source code helps you little to none in that case when you don't own the server that the software is running and that is storing the data. The FSF has largely failed to address those issue, both in terms of plain philosophy as well as in terms of additional licenses. The question of how you gain back user freedom in a heavily interconnected world is largely unanswered.
And that's disappointing, as it feels like there is a lot that could be done. The GDPR for example gives a lot of freedoms back to the user that didn't exit before (e.g. data export, right of deletion), but it's a European law. If I wanted to provide similar rights to users outside of Europe there is no Free Software license I can use, even AGPL only addresses the source code, not the actual user data that is being processed. I think it would be a good time to start developing licenses for the flow of data, instead of just worrying about the software, but as far as I can tell, that's not happening at the FSF or in the few cases were it is, I don't feel it's quite going in the right direction (e.g. too much focus on federation as a solution, which is still ripe for abuse without any kind of rules to regulate the dataflow).
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Insightful)
My biggest fear is that the Stallman purge is more about setting up the GPL V.4 that we know is what these assholes really want. The 'or any later version' clause leaves things set up for these jackals to have a feast once they've kicked people like Stallman out.
Re: (Score:3)
What is best for true Free Software adaptation in the long run, a charismatic leader or a someone with principles that he's not ready to compromise with
This is obviously meant to give us a choice between "someone that people like" and "someone like RMS who won't compromise on their principles"
It's obviously framed to put B in the better light, with the implication that RMS is the best for the FSF.
In pointing out the falsity of the choice, I offered the most extreme example of why "Someone who won't compromise on their principles" is a dangerous bedfellow if you have also decided to ignore any of their
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry but you assume to much.
Fair enough. Then I apologize for my assumption.
But he seems first and foremost be a champion for FLOSS, which is why we can use GNU/Linux for free today in every sense of the word.
He is. And his contributions toward it are undeniable.
And my life evolves very much around GNU/Linux so I'm very thankfull for this.
Mine too. Of course linux would have existed without the GNU. It's not like BSDs userspace is closed source.
But being most familiar with GNU userspace myself, and disliking BSD's, I definitely understand "being thankful for GNU"
So please, adress my questions with some counter arguments
Or perhaps I should just rephrase what I said in a less inflammatory manner.
What is best for true Free Software adaptation in the long run, a charismatic leader or a someone with principles that he's not ready to compromise with?
I reject that our options are limited to those things. I also reject that any person in power now is the
Re: Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care much about his "toxic shitposting" as long as he can get work done for the FSF.
I do, because a single productive asshole can drop overall productivity significantly.
This will probably not be the case after all these "prominent" organizations and people have publicy shamed him.
It was already not the case, which was why he resigned after things were made public.
This is about him coming back, which led to a more public and pointed backlash from the prominent organizations.
Remember, he has not done anything illegal, he just has views that obviously provoce people.
I'm not suggesting we lock him up, so the legality just isn't relevant.
Provoking people in the workplace, or in the public forum if you're a representative of an organization is highly non-conducive to the function of the workplace.
If these people would just have kept quiet then RMS would probably be working as usual. Now he has been publicy shamed, judged one could say. Is this right?
Yes. But they didn't. Nor do I believe they should have been expected to.
As for the kind of leader I would like to have one with principles that don't succumb to other peoples arbitrary opinions that change from day to day depending on the current trend.
Let's say the leader were a woman.
Let's say she openly discussed on work forums whether or not it was "really" sexual assault for fathers to rape their sons, or whether or not it could even really be considered rape, since most kids "voluntarily" submit to incestuous rape.
Worse- let's say that had happened to you. Let's even say there was a statistically high chance that it had.
Can you imagine how it would make you feel? Would you still want to work there?
What about everyone else who fell into that statistic?
This woman in power, is discussing whether some traumatic event that happened to you was truly criminal. What level of disruption do we allow before we decide to get rid of this lady?
I do not accept that this is some opinion about something that is subject to a day-to-day trend.
The more good qualities the better, but there will always be a trade off since, as you say, no one is perfect, and I prefer principle before charm.
We don't disagree here at all. The part I think we disagree on is at what point the trade off fails to break even.
The reason I'm saying this is because I get the feeling that nowadays it's all about surface, identity, not offending anyone, than quality.
I think you unfairly diminish the line between "offensive" and "beyond the pale"
Of course the truth is much more nuanced than this but maybe Slashdot is not the right forum for these kind of deep delving into the truth. But, neither are the platforms on which the shallow allogations of him are being made on.
I merely looked at his own words, in the context they existed in.
I don't care what anyone else said about him.
If I were his employer, he'd be gone. It would be hard for me to imagine what amount of good word would counter the liability of having that asshole working for me.
If I were a customer or partner of his employer, I'd let them know that he was an impediment to me doing business with them. I find his views vile, and I can't in good conscience ask anyone else to put up with the shit he says either. That's a problem. A problem that it is fair to act on.
Re: Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's disassociate this from sex since that apparently impedes your ability to think about this in an unbiased manner. Causing you to take carefully nuanced phrasing applicable to a specific situation, and generalizing it until it in no way resembles the original statement. Then condemning the speaker as if he made your over-generalized statement, not you.
Or let's put a more personal spin on this. If you bought a used iPhone on eBay which you were assured and convinced was a legit sale, and it later turned out to be stolen, how would you defend yourself if you were then accused of being an iPhone thief? That's the distinction Stallman is making. He's not saying the real thieves are any less of a thief. He's not saying the people who had their iPhones stolen are any less of a victim. He is simply pointing out that the recipient of the stolen goods may not have known they were stolen. Would you want your boss to be fired just because s/he points out that you might not have known the phone was stolen when you bought it?
(And FWIW, I disagree with RMS on a lot of stuff. I find his reasoning on open source to be idealistic and overly simplistic, lacking consideration for flaws which cause problems with the concept. But in this particular case, his reasoning is sound.)
Re: (Score:3)
It's the fact that his titanic accomplishments outweigh a bunch of cancel culture bullies getting outraged. Given the choice, I (and most people) choose to defy them.
What do his accomplishments have to do with whether he is a good representative for the FSF? We're not talking about hiring him as a developer or anything like that. We're talking about a role where all that matters is one's reputation and ability to communicate effectively. RMS is extremely deficient in both categories.
This has nothing to do with "cancel culture." No one is saying that RMS can't contribute code to FSF projects or he cannot be involved in any way. It's a question of whether he should be pla
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Informative)
The titanic accomplishment was that the kid got the source code with that 'freeware' and with it a legal structured way to release software of their own that others can also use to the fullest extent.
You're welcome to claim others would've eventually done that and got there, but he's the one that did that.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be the 1989 GPL [wikipedia.org], but back in his day remember the computer user was also the programmer, and the spirit of freely distributing software and source code was noted in Bill Gate's 1976 Open letter to hobbyists [wikipedia.org].
Re:Stallman is an ass.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Free Software Foundation exists BECAUSE Stallman is an intolerant ass. Everybody else made peace with binary-only vendors.
Of all the reasons to kick him out of the movement he founded, intolerance of his support for Marvin Minsky is about the most ironic possible. There he was urging people not to rush to judgement.
Live by political zealotry, die by political zealo (Score:4, Insightful)
The titanic accomplishment was that the kid got the source code with that 'freeware' and with it a legal structured way to release software of their own that others can also use to the fullest extent.
BSD is used to the fullest. GPL has strings and limitations attached. These limitations were merely acceptable to the kid. BSD was also acceptable to the kid but AT&T lawsuits blocked that option at a critical point. The GPL/GNU success is nothing more that lucky timing. The truth of the matter is that most GPL software users don't give a shit about the politics of GNU. They just want unix on PC hardware. That's it. RMS' contribution was introducing politics into software development, and that did not make things better. Live by political zealotry, die by political zealotry.
You're welcome to claim others would've eventually done that and got there, but he's the one that did that.
Actually others did it as well, BSD, MIT, etc deliver more actually.
Re: Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:3)
Without commenting on RMS, Linux itself has nothing to do with GNU, and in fact by far the most widely distributed versions of Linux out there (in the form of Android) don't even have any gnu software distributed with them. If you want to argue that the likes of red hat or ubuntu are gnu, that's fine, but Linux isn't.
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Insightful)
He could do a lot to resolve this. Linus is a great example. Apologised for his occasionally poor behaviour and made an effort to fix it. Was welcomed back and continued in his role.
It's the absolute lack of any acknowledgement that anything he has done or said that is really making things difficult with RMS.
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Untill someone actually names something that he ACTUALLY did or said and preferably why that something is a problem, I don't see how he can apologize for it without lying.
It will be even better if that something happened in this millennium.
Absent that, this is all just yet another group of people that think it's OK to stuff the nerd into a locker.
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:4, Informative)
His business cards, which he calls "pleasure cards", straight up proposition the receiver with an offer of "tender embraces". He offers these to women he meets in professional settings, like conferences or at work.
https://i.imgur.com/hcjY8wQ.jp... [imgur.com]
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Would this be the same cards he gives out to ANYONE (male or female) in lieu of "business" cards?
Men look at them and go "aha, lame joke on "I'm not a business man".
Women - WHO INSIST THEY SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY, AND ARE NOT HYPER DELICATE LITTLE FLOWERS - apparently clutch their vaginas in fear that it might vaguely be a proposition (which even if it was, it takes zero effort to ignore)?
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Informative)
His business cards, which he calls "pleasure cards", straight up proposition the receiver with an offer of "tender embraces". He offers these to women he meets in professional settings, like conferences or at work.
https://i.imgur.com/hcjY8wQ.jp... [imgur.com]
It is a joke on the old "business or pleasure" that the airlines asked you about. "Business card" then became "Pleasure card". He does not offer them only to women but to everyone. It would be better to ask him to defend it rather than blindly attacking him over every minor thing that you think might be problematic.
Re: (Score:3)
And what about the offer of "tender embraces", how would you like to defend that?
Maybe offering people "tender embraces" along with a pretty bad, suggestive joke isn't the most sensible way to proceed in life.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What is the fundamental difference between handing out a card and vocally asking someone out on a date or to hang out that makes handing out a card so much worse?
Well, I'm glad you asked!
Re: (Score:3)
Please show me the evidence that RMS engaged in a "sustained pattern of soliciting sexual favors from coworkers and colleagues".
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Funny)
Until someone actually names something that he ACTUALLY did or said and preferably why that something is a problem, I don't see how he can apologize for it without lying.
RMS turned me into a newt! Well . . . I did get better. But he looks like a witch . . . well, we did do the nose and the hat . . . but the hair is his!
And he weights the same as a duck, so he's a witch and we should burn him!
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Untill someone actually names something that he ACTUALLY did or said and preferably why that something is a problem, I don't see how he can apologize for it without lying.
This is the problem with perfectly logical people (as well as autistically people). RMS was right. His language quite carefully was a statement of fact. But being right doesn't mean you're not being insensitive. Hitler was a great leader, he built the German autobahn! See, statement of fact. Fucking horrible statement to promote that man in that light, but nonetheless a statement of fact. That RMS doesn't realise that his statement of fact appears to sympathise with the aggressors, even if it doesn't when read really really carefully is the problem.
Leaders need good PR, and RMS has none.
Re: (Score:3)
You could argue that the world would be a better place if people were less flighty, emotional and prone to jumping to rage inducing conclusions.
Nevertheless, most of the job of a "leader" or a figurehead is to manage flighty, emotional humans prone to jumping to rage inducing conclusions.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:4, Informative)
Read the emails, I second that.
If you read the emails, you'll see that he says that Giuffre would have appeared "entirely willing" to Minsky.
But he also says that she wasn't willing, because she was coerced by Epstein.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you read the emails, you'll see that he says that Giuffre would have appeared "entirely willing" to Minsky.
Minsky organized a conference on Epstein's island years after he had plead guilty to prostituting a child and done jail time for it. Minsky was clearly not in any hurry to avoid associating with a registered child sex offender, and in fact was wilfully ignoring Epstein's crimes so he could continue visiting that island.
I don't think that's something anyone should be defending.
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Informative)
Read the e-mail. He said that he believes Minsky did it, but that the underage victim may have been, quote, "entirely willing", and so it wasn't sexual assault.
Here's what he actually said:
The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin
Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])”
The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault”
is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X.
The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference
reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem.
(See https://www.theverge.com/2019/... [theverge.com])
Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.
We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation. Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.
He never suggested what you say he did. He suggested that the most plausible scenario was that the girl was likely coerced (by someone other than Minsky) to appear entirely willing, and that Minsky likely had no reason to believe she was not. That is very, very different than what you claim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What "has" he done then? :P
Go ahead, link to it. No,
"Any quotes on SJW sites or Twitter or Wikipedia or the like do not qualify." -- Albert Einstein
NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATIONS!
That's what substantiates them, out of thin air, even if there is no actual substance!
It makes it stick!
That is the worst thing you can ever do when facing a bully.
It is like seeing an angry dog and starting to run.
THEY need to substantiate, OR go to prison for defamation.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea but you forget the WHY that happen. Its the same reason Clinton does not get canceled but gets to remain a public figure. Linus is useful to them, Clinton is useful to them so they are allowed to apologize and given a pass.
Your mob would not afford me or RMS the same opportunity. Its all about what they can get out of it, not anything resembling actual justice. If you are seen as replaceable you get crucified, if you bring in the mega donators and/or might be useful in some other way than no matter w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Almost. Its true that YOU, I, and people like RMS cannot apologize. Some animals are a little more equal though. Clinton still raises a ton of money - so he gets deny and apologize as he chooses. Its about the mob extracting something of value from your. If i have something to offer them its a enough for them to show they cowed you. If you regular Joe Public type or they don't see you as advancing their cause, than you will be destroyed.
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But he's our idiot.
one whom it is blindingly obvious that he has Asperger's. no social filters which "everyone assumes that everyone has". i remember Dr Ian Jackson telling me a story about a young woman at Cambridge University, brilliant yet socially completely inept. Dr Jackson literally taught her - from scratch - how to interact with others, on her own, so that she could walk into a bar and order a drink.
there's just been another story about people being released from prison who have to be taught about technology https://mobile.slashdot.org/st... [slashdot.org]
these people are all saying "Dr Stallman is to be ousted from today's inclusive society", does anyone else get the irony? if they were serious about their committment to inclusiveness they'd say "we deeply appreciate Dr Stallman's contribution to the world and how our entire organisation / company basically wouldn't exist without his Asperger's-level committment. we are extremely sorry that we had not realised that we assumed him to be so 'not-normal' due to that life-long committment, that we'd like to take responsibility for helping him to reach the level of social "normalness" that everyone expects today, so that we can claim that we meet our own organisation's standards of inclusiveness".
it's awkwardly-worded but you get the general idea.
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:4, Insightful)
these people are all saying "Dr Stallman is to be ousted from today's inclusive society", does anyone else get the irony?
No they aren't. They are saying he shouldn't be the *leader* of this inclusive society as he doesn't demonstrate the values society is trying to promote. There's a difference.
Honestly your comment sounds like Mitch Mcconnell complaining that we would be "ruining the life" of Brett Kavanaugh simply by not promoting him to the supreme court.
Please get some perspective.
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Stallman is 68 years old. He's had plenty of time to learn social graces with or without assistance.
If he is unable to interact appropriately with other people and unable to learn how, then we can have compassion on him, but he is poorly qualified to be on the board of a public-facing organisation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm hesitant to diagnose neurological conditions in other people, but for the sake of argument let's say you are right.
I have disabilities. When I take a job with responsibilities I think about if my disability will impact that work. It sucks because I'd like to do whatever I want, but the reality is I can't and I must simply accept that.
If RMS has a condition that affects his ability to head up an international organization or to work at MIT in a supervisory role then while some accommodation is possible,
Re: (Score:3)
these people are all saying "Dr Stallman is to be ousted from today's inclusive society", does anyone else get the irony?
No I don't see the irony because there is none.
I've been in tech quite a few years and I've met plenty of people who ranged from "on the spectrum" to "bloody peculiar", to "lacking filters", to not really getting normal human interactions and so on. Now, some of these people were assholes and some were not. Some became close friends.
Being not neurotypical is orthogonal from being an assho
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not even really want to defend RMS. But the way he gets cancelled is extremely disturbing and does not bode well for things to come. Dark times ahead.
Re:Stallman is an idiot.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
So a FACEBOOK dude (of all) talks about TOXIC something, anything?
And that other dude from, what is it, google (?), talks about sexism and stuff..
Brilliant!!
I think they protest too much (Score:4)
Call Nathan Sidwell to account (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh. I think I understand.
Nathan Sidwell, if you want to persist on this witch hunt, then I call on you to cite the behavior that you consider to be toxic, and preferably I am seeking behavior that is out of the bounds of average for the nerd-crowd as we grew up. You are referring to a man as toxic for citing simple fact.
I call on you to enunciate your criticisms, as you yourself come across as a toxic, emotional wreck.
Re:Call Nathan Sidwell to account (Score:5, Insightful)
Nathan Sidwell, if you want to persist on this witch hunt, then I call on you to cite the behavior that you consider to be toxic, and preferably I am seeking behavior that is out of the bounds of average for the nerd-crowd as we grew up. You are referring to a man as toxic for citing simple fact.
And, Nathan, please reflect your criticism on your employer. I'll bet that if you compare RMS and Facebook on the "bad" scale, that Facebook will win hands down.
Re:Call Nathan Sidwell to account (Score:5, Insightful)
The "Pleasure Cards" would seem to meet your requirements.
It is a joke on "Business or Pleasure?". It may be in bad taste, but it is not what it gets portrayed as. I find it disappointing you do not know that.
Re:Call Nathan Sidwell to account (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're insisting it's Stallman's obligation to follow the cultural norms of US business culture (boy, is that a hegemonic culture!), about such things as whether business cards are a joking matter.
The FSF was founded to challenge a specific cultural norm of US business culture. To declare something immoral - not just unwise, but straight up wrong - that the majority culture found moral.
Re:Call Nathan Sidwell to account (Score:4, Informative)
Have you seen the cards? They promise "tender embraces".
Maybe they are a joke, but I can see why a lot of people would not read them that way. A well respected, somewhat powerful man hands you a card offering "tender embraces"... Well in the age of Weinstein and Spacey and countless others you can appreciate why that might be concerning.
It's hardly the only example either, there are decades of stories about the poor way he treated women at MIT.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A well respected, somewhat powerful man hands you a card offering "tender embraces"... Well in the age of Weinstein and Spacey and countless others you can appreciate why that might be concerning.
I saw an image of one of those cards. It looks ancient, the sort of thing you would buy 25 years ago.
Do you have any evidence that RMS is still distributing these cards? Or are his "crimes" heinous enough to ignore any consideration of when they happened? I see you've posted about the cards maybe 10 times on this and the other story, so you must consider it a very serious offence.
Re: (Score:3)
Make up your mind on whether the example you used is valid or not. Moving the goalposts just means you know you are wrong but cannot admit it.
Also, even if RMS is an ass (and I will not claim either way, because he well may be), does this justify a witch-hunt of this proportion in your opinion? Careful how you answer, the revolution may well start to eat its children at some point. It is an established pattern.
Re:Call Nathan Sidwell to account (Score:5, Interesting)
"Somewhat powerful"?
Stallman has no power that you don't give him. Being associated with him doesn't open any doors for your career, more likely the opposite - that's been true for long before these allegations. Nor can he pull strings to hurt your career, he just doesn't have the social sophistication to do that kind of thing.
He doesn't really even have much of an audience. Seriously, go to his website, and tell me if you even knew he argued for half the things he argues for. If his goal is to get loyal followers he can tell what to do, he's a miserable failure.
The only real power he has concerns updating the GPL, and I don't see him using that to get leverage over people.
EFF Puts its finger on it (Score:5, Insightful)
"serious accusations of misconduct"
Accusations are not enough, especially when most of them are transparently false.
Re:EFF Puts its finger on it (Score:5, Informative)
"serious accusations of misconduct"
Accusations are not enough, especially when most of them are transparently false.
for anyone looking for the facts - rather than the slander - this was covered only yesterday:
https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Re:EFF Puts its finger on it (Score:4, Informative)
This link is inaccurate. Regarding the Minsky/Epstein thing, the facts are:
Minksy was friends with Epstein, and visited his island in 2002, organizing a conference there. Epstein funded some of Minsky's research to the tune of $100k.
In 2008 Epstein was convicted of prostituting a child and spent time in jail for it. He was also banned from donating to MIT. Minsky must have been aware of this.
In 2011 Minksy organized another conference on Epstein's island. He did not distance himself from a registered sex offender who had admitted prostituting children.
RMS defended Minsky on a few counts. The most controversial is that *if* Minsky had sex with an underage girl, RMS said that she would have presented herself as willing and Minsky would have had no reason to think otherwise. In fact Minksy would have every reason to think otherwise, given Epstein's conviction for child prostitution.
Re: (Score:3)
You stopped reading 1/2 way down.
In 2008 Epstein was convicted of prostituting a child and spent time in jail for it. He was also banned from donating to MIT. Minsky must have been aware of this.
In 2011 Minksy organized another conference on Epstein's island. He did not distance himself from a registered sex offender who had admitted prostituting children.
2011 > 2008. That's why he should have thought otherwise.
Re:EFF Puts its finger on it (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, we have an easily disproven accusation of misconduct and a bunch of accusations that there was misconduct that cannot be proven or disproven since nobody seems to know what that misconduct was.
It's as if a prosecutor said "The defendant broke the law, we're sure. We seek the death penalty, the prosecution rests".
The whole thing is actually quite disturbing and disgusting in equal measure.
Re:EFF Puts its finger on it (Score:4, Insightful)
Accusations are not enough, especially when most of them are transparently false.
Yes they enough. Figureheads and leaders live and die on accusations.
Bullshit. Just complete bullshit. You can not have a functioning society based on the idea that any accusation, no matter how fanciful or easily disproved, means that someone must be removed from all public-facing activity.
plz explain (Score:4, Insightful)
hypothetically he is sexist , rasist, phobic in some way.
are those just his opinons. or has he used the platform he is given to push his agenda?
if its the latter. surly there is cause/effect ie crime punishment. once the punishment is complete he continues.
if its the former. really who cares. one is allowed to have misguided opinions as long as it does not affect your work and who works for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody but the FSF gets to make that call.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent. We've seen that all you have to do to these cancel culture bullies is stand up to them. Tell them, to their faces, "No". Just like Metaxas said when Greece was invaded in WWII. They'll scream and shake their fists in rage, and then everyone ignores them and moves on in life.
A staggeringly small number of people are part of this outrage mob. The other 99% of us are sick of their shit. Just say no.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a sad day that I have to stop donating to EFF. But I can't with clear conscience promote organizations that decided to officially join this witch hunt.
Let's put such donation budget towards FSF -- at least unless they cave in.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
You think you are the 99%? Why not share some of Stallman's opinions with other people to see?
Go to your mother and repeat the joke about Emacs Virgins being women who haven't used Emacs before, and how it's your duty to take their virginity away. Do you think she'll find Stallman's joke funny?
Go to your non-tech worker friends and tell them you think if a 70 year old went to Epstein's private island and has sex with one of his underaged sex trafficking victims it's not assault or rape as long as Epstein made her present herself as willing. Do you think they'll agree with Stallman's take?
Does your mother have a smartphone? I bet she does. Do your friends all have computers and user software and services daily? I bet they do.
The tech industry has grown far beyond a tiny clique of obnoxious nerd culture, and as companies try to lock down the software and devices they sell to the tech mass marker the aims of free software are more important than ever.
If Stallman is unwilling or unable to take this ever growing responsibility as a figurehead of free software seriously, then he needs to step aside and let someone better at it do that job instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. The outrage crowd is actually tiny! The simplest solution is to not listen to them. Like we did before. They can't do shit.
And because they will never ever get sex from anyone, they will not breed much either.
The only reason they are a thing at all, is because it is the *ultimate* clickbait for the media. As it is the ultimate trigger. It gets *everyone*’s blood boiling!
Something that neurally definitely will be measurable as pain. (Like lovesickness, which also lights up the pain center like
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
(plus 48 companies and organizations) (Score:5, Insightful)
That bit right there is how you can be pretty sure of two things.
1) Stallman is leaving for good soon.
2) This is a very bad thing.
Re: (plus 48 companies and organizations) (Score:3)
It is a very bad thing because it is an omen. Companies and organizations all lined up on one side of this issue, and we all know why, and that curse now infests the free software movement. Globohomo is winning.
"scaring away the women" (Score:5, Interesting)
Stallman is an honest to God autist. It's pretty clear he will always do things that make people uncomfortable, no matter how hard he tries. The question is, why isn't it on us to cope? It's pretty clear Stallman isn't a threat in any meaningful sense, and we're smart enough to realize that, even if our autonomic nervous system isn't always. If we have to pick between actively throwing him out, or passively scaring away people who can't handle the way he is (women or not), why do we give the latter such priority?
I think Graydon Hoare lets the cat out of the bag. It's not about inclusion and diversity - if it was, then obviously throwing out the person with a disability that makes people uncomfortable would be a no-go. It's about "scaring away the women". A lot of things masquerading as inclusiveness is simply down to men wishing that there were more women around them, for the simple selfish reason that they like women.
Re:"scaring away the women" (Score:5, Insightful)
no matter how hard he tries
He's been told for decades yet still makes the same screw-ups over and over. If he doesn't want to try to change then that's fine, but then he has to accept that makes him terrible at the job of being a public figurehead for an organization that is growing ever more important now that mass tech consumership is mainstream, and move to a behind the scene's role so someone else who is better at that job can fill that role.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to be the only other person who gets it! Stallman's position and the demands to step down have nothing to do with if what he said was right, it's about him exercising bad enough public relationships that he said anything at all. The position he commands is one of public relations, and it's clear he's not good at it.
RMS did nothing wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Condone one witch-burning... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and become complicit in all the others that are sure to follow. My guess is most of these organizations and people have no clue what they are participating in. Does not make them any less guilty. The whole thing is obviously a trial-run for removing people that are in the way of commercial interests. Unfortunately, the virtue-signalers are falling allover themselves to be in on the action and to show how "pure" they are.
Re: (Score:3)
I for one support hunting witches out of positions they don't belong. I mean we're talking about a guy who is in a figure head position of a foundation that depends heavily on public relations, and he has a long history of having fucking poor public relations to the point of frequently being accused of being on the spectrum. Let the genius work but for the love of god remove him from those public positions where he consistently does damage over and over again.
Unfortunately, the virtue-signalers
Look up virtue-signaling in the dictionary. Call
Re: (Score:3)
the virtue-signalers
I hate that term, because it isn't virtue signaling when one truly believes in the virtue.
I think that certain...techies on the autistic specturem who might not feel that virtue think that others are "faking virtue" when they're not and thus bring up the "virtue signaling" accusation.
Stallman's a guy who spent his young adulthood in a code-dungeon with other people just like him. And most of us know he's on the autistic spectrum. He's not the guy you want doing PR, he's the guy you keep behind the scenes a
Slashdot appears to be trying to create news (Score:3)
Rather than simply report on it.
Mozilla's statement is disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
"We can't demand better of the internet if we don't demand better of our leaders"?
Excuse me? You have no business demanding anything of anyone else other than compliance with the laws. Demanding moral standards of complete strangers? This isn't a cult, a religion, or some fucked up fascist or hippie commune.
Their link to the original petition, which got RMS removed, only shows how unjust it was. You can stop reading at "Richard Stallman has problematic opinions." They haven't actually linked to any opinion in which he presumably defended legality of child pornography. No one claims he ever took part in that... just that he questioned whether it should be illegal. That sounds weird, but given that this is a description from people who use the phrase "problematic opinion" unironically, I don't believe a single judgement call they make. The petition didn't have a direct quote. So that part of the petition deserves no hearing. The petitioners start out by giving a solid reason why they themselves deserve zero benefit of the doubt.
Here's another quote:
I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”
Anyone who doesn't think this is great humor, deserves no hearing. This is a good quality joke.
The whole petition reads as if it were written by people so traumatized that they have lost all sense of reality. I am sorry for whatever trauma they have experienced that got them there. But their judgement is not just questionable. It is utterly unreliable.
The accusation, which they make with zero evidence, that Stallman may have kept many talented people from succeeding in tech, is baseless.
Is Stallman a pig? Yep. Is he so unable to keep himself in check that he would pursue someone unwilling? Well, it's been 2 years and there hasn't been a single such account. The blabber about there not being a possibility of a romantic relationship when there is an imbalance of power is garbage. Not all consenting sexual relationships are romantic. They have no business dictating adults' sexual mores. Sometimes it's just fucking. If you don't like it, say your own damn Hail Mary's.
Re:Mozilla's statement is disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
Excuse me? You have no business demanding anything of anyone else other than compliance with the laws.
Actually yes we do. Especially from leaders we demand that they lead by example of the societal norms we wish to promote, if the foundation they lead expects money from us. I mean seriously your opening line is incredibly dumb. I'm looking forward to the rest of your post.
Their link to the original petition, which got RMS removed, only shows how unjust it was.
He said something publicly as a figurehead in an insensitive way. You seem to be concerned with if he was right (he was), not if he was demonstrating good leadership and public relations (the topic at hand).
Anyone who doesn't think this is great humor, deserves no hearing. This is a good quality joke.
Oh boy I was not left disappointed with the rest of your post. I'm sure to a white male a joke at the expense of people who are constantly harassed in the industry actually would be funny to you. If you ever apply for a position of a figurehead of a large foundation we'll dig this comment out as an example of why you'd also make a horrible leader.
The accusation, which they make with zero evidence
The accusation is that he was insensitive. The fact that there is controversy around his position at all is evidence enough. It's a position that demands there no be controversy, not a position that demands an autist who runs his mouth attempting to hide behind logic when his comments are seen as insensitive to others.
Is Stallman a pig? Yep.
So you're in agreement then that he doesn't belong on the board, as a figurehead of a foundation that is very reliant on PR. Why didn't you start with this line and then simply not write the rest of your post.
Disturbing (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it deeply disturbing that so many companies and organisations openly support this vile attack, which is nothing more than bulling and slander. Like sure, you might not like Stallman as leader of the FSF, I have my issues with that guy too, but the reason they give are nothing more than unfounded lies that completely fall apart when you look into the quotes they are based on. Actual evidence of anything bad he has done isn't even provide. And all of that under the guise of "inclusion" while they want to throw a guy under the bus that did nothing more than not follow the cult like group think. Disgusting.
I wonder how many women are defending RMS... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm seeing a lot of comments going both ways on here, with outrage showing up both for and against RMS.
However, I'd love to know how many (if any) women are speaking up to defend him.
As a member of a board of directors, he's got influence, even if he's not the head of the organization. Bringing him back onto the board sends the message that his behaviour is acceptable, and will be part of guiding the direction of the board going forward.
I know that I'd not be comfortable with my daughters working for the FSF with him in a position of power.
How many female engineers, office staff, lawyers etc. are also going to find other work to avoid being in that same position? How many that were already there are now feeling uncomfortable knowing who one of their bosses is?
This to me is the issue. Did he do great things in the past? Yes. Undoubtedly. Was he a sexist asshole in the past? It certainly looks like it. Has he shown any sign of NOT being a sexist asshole today? Not really. Any signs of being sorry about those his past actions have hurt? Again, not really. As others have noted - Aspergers =/= asshole.
While his principles on free software/hardware are still relevant and useful today, they come bundled with the rest of the bloatware that is RMS the person. And in today's society, that's why I think having him in a position of power in the FSF is a bad idea.
Well, that's the end of that (Score:3)
I usually donate to the EFF every year, but since they have decided to become the Electronic Canceling Foundation, I guess they don't need any of my money.
You can't lead if you can't lead. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lot of people arguing about this as a culture war issue. I think that misses the only fact that matters.
Leadership is a skill.
As with any other skill, you (or Stallman) cannot succeed past the level of your competence. Most people can successfully host a backyard barbecue. A good number of people could run a fan club. Only a tiny fraction of the population is competent enough to play a major role in a movement that spans the entire globe and has major implications for the entire technology sector.
The absolute bare minimum requirement for succeeding as a leader is that you can maintain trust and influence. On that metric, the guy is blowing it.
The Free Software movement used to be a cool little fan club, now it's an international multi-industry effort. Stallman's leadership skills peaked somewhere along the way. Turning that fact into a culture war is a mistake, no matter what other completely irrelevant opinions other people have that you don't like.
After all these posts on the Stallman drama (Score:4, Funny)
Last but not least... (Score:3)
Red Hat has stopped all funding for the FSF:
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog... [redhat.com]
Re:*eye roll* (Score:5, Informative)
Other than argue it could be an honest mistake when someone has sex with an underage sex worker.
Did you read the opinion of Nadine Strossen expressed here [wetheweb.org]?
And are you familiar with illusory truth effect [wikipedia.org], when you are one of many repeating increasingly bigger lies ad nauseum?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Small loss.
Re: (Score:3)
I also doubted to sign the pro Stallman letter for this reason. I did eventually sign it, but I think a large amount of people are not signing it because they know that indeed the cancel culture people will come after them.