3 ms·

We can hope so. Free Software is needed in today’s society, probably more than it was needed at its inception. But it needs to be for everyone, and needs new le

by moomin 7y ago

We can hope so. Free Software is needed in today’s society, probably more than it was needed at its inception. But it needs to be for everyone, and needs new leaders. I hope this is the start, not the end, of the movement.

seba_dos1 7y ago
I hope so too. The way this change happened however leaves a really bad taste, and not in the least due to whatever Stallman has said or done.
pessimizer 7y ago
I hope with you, but I doubt. There was nothing keeping new leaders from emerging before. Stallman never struck me as particularly jealous, just particular. We might just be witnessing the retirement of the only person with the single-mindedness and influence to keep the thing going.
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  Yes, FSF basically forked into its own not so free software movement, especially after some FSF people publicly joined the attack on Stallman. Old movement is dead, split, new movements are not going to be the same.
- zelphirkalt 7y ago
  This is also something I fear might happen. Let us hope for the best. Someone with a clear way of making logical arguments, with firm idea about free software, furthering the original goals.
plange 7y ago
I agree with everything you said, but this movement has been going on for a long time but and has been very bad at... hisss.. marketing. These are complex topics and people don't want to put in the effort to understand them so this needs some top-shelf selling power. And there's no money to be made. Just freedom (as in speech).
- pessimizer 7y ago
  The FSF has been wildly successful at marketing, its ideas have completely pervaded and transformed computing and tech, and its effects will be felt for centuries, if humans last that long. In my experience, people who say the FSF have been bad at marketing have three types of criticism. The first two are unbelievably shallow, and honestly obviated by the FSFs success while ignoring them: 1) fonts, and whatever web design trend is current, and 2) Richard Stallman's personal appearance and tone. Plenty of contenders for the group du jour of software freedom have concentrated on web design and being attractive TED Talk types, have gotten zero traction, and faded into the mist - turns out people prefer a complete and detailed philosophy, a track record of standing behind it, and a spokesperson who clearly has no ulterior motives. The third is both far more intense and more telling: when Stallman would criticize the practices of specific companies, or the failure or more permissive licenses to require the users to share changes. IMO, this is the criticism of people who don't actually agree with the idea of software freedom at all but don't want to say it because they have strong feelings about property rights and the ability to control their code after it's left their physical or technical possession, that don't jibe with their visceral disgust at a license that would force you to share, or to behave in any sort of an altruistic way (like the unfree "don't be evil" or "don't be the military" licenses.) Forced altruism bothers them. The people in the third category are obviously unqualified to carry the torch because they at best are bystanders, and at worst enemies of the idea of free software. The people in the first two, the "marketers," are not likely do do it because marketing (of an useful, positive idea) is essentially cynical; it's sugar on the pill. It's what you do to get children to do something that's good for them but they don't understand. Adults prefer better pills. not better sugar. Sugar is cheap, I can buy my own.

by moomin 7y ago

seba_dos1 7y ago

I hope so too. The way this change happened however leaves a really bad taste, and not in the least due to whatever Stallman has said or done.

pessimizer 7y ago

I hope with you, but I doubt. There was nothing keeping new leaders from emerging before. Stallman never struck me as particularly jealous, just particular. We might just be witnessing the retirement of the only person with the single-mindedness and influence to keep the thing going.

zzzcpan 7y ago
Yes, FSF basically forked into its own not so free software movement, especially after some FSF people publicly joined the attack on Stallman. Old movement is dead, split, new movements are not going to be the same.
zelphirkalt 7y ago
This is also something I fear might happen. Let us hope for the best. Someone with a clear way of making logical arguments, with firm idea about free software, furthering the original goals.

plange 7y ago

I agree with everything you said, but this movement has been going on for a long time but and has been very bad at... hisss.. marketing. These are complex topics and people don't want to put in the effort to understand them so this needs some top-shelf selling power. And there's no money to be made. Just freedom (as in speech).

pessimizer 7y ago
The FSF has been wildly successful at marketing, its ideas have completely pervaded and transformed computing and tech, and its effects will be felt for centuries, if humans last that long. In my experience, people who say the FSF have been bad at marketing have three types of criticism. The first two are unbelievably shallow, and honestly obviated by the FSFs success while ignoring them: 1) fonts, and whatever web design trend is current, and 2) Richard Stallman's personal appearance and tone. Plenty of contenders for the group du jour of software freedom have concentrated on web design and being attractive TED Talk types, have gotten zero traction, and faded into the mist - turns out people prefer a complete and detailed philosophy, a track record of standing behind it, and a spokesperson who clearly has no ulterior motives. The third is both far more intense and more telling: when Stallman would criticize the practices of specific companies, or the failure or more permissive licenses to require the users to share changes. IMO, this is the criticism of people who don't actually agree with the idea of software freedom at all but don't want to say it because they have strong feelings about property rights and the ability to control their code after it's left their physical or technical possession, that don't jibe with their visceral disgust at a license that would force you to share, or to behave in any sort of an altruistic way (like the unfree "don't be evil" or "don't be the military" licenses.) Forced altruism bothers them. The people in the third category are obviously unqualified to carry the torch because they at best are bystanders, and at worst enemies of the idea of free software. The people in the first two, the "marketers," are not likely do do it because marketing (of an useful, positive idea) is essentially cynical; it's sugar on the pill. It's what you do to get children to do something that's good for them but they don't understand. Adults prefer better pills. not better sugar. Sugar is cheap, I can buy my own.