14 ms·

That's what makes me so furious at the morons who deplatformed RMS over some silly devil's advocate defense of Minsky on an internal mailing list. The guy has a

That's what makes me so furious at the morons who deplatformed RMS over some silly devil's advocate defense of Minsky on an internal mailing list. The guy has an important idea that he put most of his life into developing. In the process, he made programming much more inclusive than anyone could dream about in the days of proprietary operating system with compilers that sold for thousands of dollars. So even if having to deal with a difficult old man makes you feel a little less inclusive, it's not too crazy to give him some breaks. The kids who ran him out of town only know how to destroy, not how to create anything comparable to what he did.

malvosenior 7y ago
I don’t think that’s fair to those who had a problem with RMS. Him arguing about peodophilia on a mailing list does nothing at all to help his ideas spread. It takes quite a lot away in fact. What was the purpose of his argument? To defend his friend Minsky? Again, that does nothing to promote free software, it only adds unneeded and negative baggage. That’s bad leadership and bad for RMS’ message. Yes he had great ideas. They were so great that they exist beyond the man who created them and now benefit from him not being involved.
- jnwatson 7y ago
  So just because he happens to be the president of an organization means he can’t defend his colleague on an unrelated private message board? The chilling effect of such a policy essentially means that all advocacy groups must be led by slick marketing politicians, always on-point and on-brand, even if off camera.
  - zorpner 7y ago
    This is a clear slippery slope fallacy. In this particular instance, all they had to do was not defend pedophiles, blame victims, and repeatedly engage in misogynistic behavior which literally drove women out of their discipline for decades.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    "an unrelated private message board?" Was this an unrelated private message board? I was under the impression it was on a mailing list at MIT.
    - ryeights 7y ago
      The list is semi-private, CSAIL-affiliated students and faculty only
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
        So not a private message board?
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    If he’s defending his colleague having sex with a 17 year old who had been trafficked for sex since she was 15, then yes I don’t think any president of an organization should do that.
    - wander_homer 7y ago
      His entire argument was that it was possible that he had no idea that she was a trafficking victim when she approached him, it could have been a regular prostitute from his point of view. However Stallman didn't downplay the harm that's been done to the girl and he didn't rule out the possibility that his friend indeed knew about all of that.
    - craigsmansion 7y ago
      > If he’s defending That's a big "if" Stallman was reviled not for things he didn't do, but for thoughts he didn't think.
      - flatb 7y ago
        Stallman was reviled because he has been accused, by several independent parties, of, among other things: -Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office. -Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him. -Posting up signs in his workplace along the lines of "Knight for Justice (Also: Hot Ladies)".
        craigsmansion 7y ago
        > Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office. Even the initial accusation doesn't try to push the story that far: "He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. [..] (the mattress was also known to have shirtless people lounging on it…)" Person has sleeping accommodation in place where he lives (odd thought it may be). Sometimes people use it as chair. No mentions of requests or toplessness. > -Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him. Unsubstantiated: saying something like "I can't imagine life without you" can be interpreted just like that depending on a variety of circumstances. That was also decades ago. > Posting up signs in his workplace along the lines of "Knight for Justice (Also: Hot Ladies)". Really now? Incidentally also the only one of your accusations of which there is evidence instead of hearsay or urban legends. Furthermore, "a sign" not "signs".
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mav3rick 7y ago
    Having a leadership position comes with its own checks and balances. RMS isn't special to go over that.
- zaphirplane 7y ago
  you are wording the sentences to create a vague wrong impression Of what transpired Be specific about what he said that you find abhorrent This topic is uncomfortable and a lot of people stay out of it or strongly self censor. he didn’t.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    > This topic is uncomfortable and a lot of people stay out of it or strongly self censor. he didn’t. This is my point. As the president of an organization it’s not your job to make people uncomfortable about things that have nothing to do with that organization’s goals. Debating what is and is not statutory rape is not a discussion that should take place in any professional or technical environment. This instance is actually even worse than just debating something in the inappropriate context. Epstein is a huge scandal. He raped dozens if not hundreds of girls. He loaned them out to other powerful people. It is within this context that RMS’ statements are most damning. He’s wading in some very murky ethical waters and it should be no surprise he caught a backlash.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      > As the president of an organization it’s not your job to make people uncomfortable about things that have nothing to do with that organization’s goals. Did anyone claim it was his job? > Debating what is and is not statutory rape is not a discussion that should take place in any professional or technical environment. Why? > This instance is actually even worse than just debating something in the inappropriate context. Epstein is a huge scandal. He raped dozens if not hundreds of girls. He loaned them out to other powerful people. It is within this context that RMS’ statements are most damning. Why is that? Does the fact that someone commits a crime make it inappropriate to defend people associated with them against incorrect accusations? How do you square that with the rule of law? > He’s wading in some very murky ethical waters and it should be no surprise he caught a backlash. He also should not be surprised that he gets a lot of opposition for promoting free software ... so, supposedly, he should not promote free software either?
    - zaphirplane 7y ago
new_realist 7y ago
OSS predates Stallman, and will outlast him. His contributions are overstated, as is the benefit of Free Software, generally, as compared to more permissive licenses.
- flippinburgers 7y ago
  Free Software is transparent science. I don't see how you could argue that the benefit is overstated. Ideas are built on one another and that is precisely how advancements are made. What he pushes for is extremely important.
- msla 7y ago
  > His contributions are overstated, as is the benefit of Free Software, generally, as compared to more permissive licenses. That's certainly what companies which made their fortunes out of taking software out of the commons and turning it into products want people to think. Enough programmers don't want to be turned into unpaid employees that copyleft licenses have substantial uptake. Also: > OSS predates Stallman, and will outlast him. ... refusing to see a distinction between OSS and Free Software? Neat rhetorical trick.
  - msla 7y ago
    The downvotes without replies are proof I've hit a nerve, and am saying things others cannot stand because they cannot refute them.
- mistrial9 7y ago
  I met with Stallman once, in a room of two dozen people, around Stanford in 1987 or so .. I can tell you the "OSS" or whatnot you are referring to, existed in a very different world then. Stallman had a twenty minute talk, which was a strict and tightly worded explanation of the significance and reasoning behind his proposals. It was very much the utter opposite of a two line throw-away judge-and-jury declaration of conclusion, as seen above.
- garmaine 7y ago
  The term “open source software” was invented by Christine Peterson in 1998 (edit: thanks!) to distinguish from GPL-style free software. Open source (inclusive of both) never really had any traction outside a few limited domains until the GNU project.
ariabuckles 7y ago
It wasn't just this incident. RMS alienated so many women from open source and free software over the last 30 years, and we've lost all of those potential contributions. He's been getting breaks for 30 years. That he has also done some very good things isn't a good argument for continuing to tolerate his harmful behaviour after he's been asked to fix it for literally decades, and hasn't.
- sprafa 7y ago
  Didn’t know about this. Where can I read more about his behaviour around women?
  - ariabuckles 7y ago
    https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman and https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... are good starting points; I also saw threads about it from women MIT alumns on twitter.
    - norcalli 7y ago
      It would be horrifying to have meticulously documented notes on every thing you ever said that may or may not be true, and may or may not have been a joke. If his career had been a comedian and not a FOSS advocate, then would he still be crucified for saying the same things or would he simply be an awful comedian? I would be dollars to doughnuts that the author of that site and the editors of that "wiki" have made or thought worse things at some point, but because they have not reached a certain level of celebrity, there's no dossier on them. It's truly ridiculous to me the amount of effort spent on trying to claw others down. I accept that inequality exists and perhaps RMS has some awful opinions, but if that's the case then just ignore him. If there are people who are choosing to make it incumbent upon themselves to take down these "problematic" individuals, then it must be because they think that all of the systems that have allowed a person to continue to exist despite those opinions must be unreliable in adequately judging them. If that's the case, then wouldn't it be more practical to fix the endemic problem rather than destroy a single person? I'm guessing that the latter is just easier to do and more profitable as well. You gain "credibility" by attacking someone else, so it's difficult to believe that they are doing it for altruistic means. All in all, I'm pretty sick of this nonsense. A world where everyone is constantly being watched by eachother and reported on is already too authoritarian for me to want to continue living in, not to mention the already authoritarian governments doing the same.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
htns 7y ago
Yeah, I wouldn't put anything under a "GPL or any later version" for the time being.
- harry8 7y ago
  Writing anyone or any organisation a blank cheque is problematic. Even if they are perfection personified now, will they be in the future? Will it be run by none of the same people? Will they have an entirely different agenda to the one you agree with? If you can't know these things with sufficient certainty, definitely pick your license. Then only change it deliberately for your own purposes with your own goals and ideals driving it. Devils advocate: maybe gpl will never have a later version you could possibly disagree with as it's too important to too many people just like you.
knolax 7y ago
I saw a tweet on Mastodon that claimed Git was a "major barrier for people of color" or some other nonsense. Meritocracy is dying here.
- pzone 7y ago
  That kind of talk always seems downright racist to me.
hinkley 7y ago
Until the latest stink I wasn't even aware that RMS still had a platform. I haven't heard from him in probably 15 years. That may be a good thing. FSF isn't about Richard Stallman. And some of the "kids" that ran him out of town know to keep plants at their desks because it turns out he's kind of a creep around young women, and also afraid of plants. None of that information has anything to do with mailing lists. There is always some reason that gets people to deal with a problem and that reason is often objectively kinda shitty. People overlook it because the problem is finally being addressed. One of the things that's going on in the current political climate is that it's no longer enough to be a great developer but a horrible human being. Development in the 90's was punctuated by some truly titanic man-children that everyone had to 'put up with' because they were just so good at the rest of their job. Gates seems to have grown up (I'm curious what Ballmer has been up to). Jobs, god bless him, died of his own stubbornness. They keep Ellison out of the spotlight, as they seem to have done with Stallman. Until he retires that leaves Torvalds (who I hope outlasts Ellison). I am sure there were points in my life where I could be painted with that brush, and I can say with a bit of authority that we don't need that kind of behavior. And if behavior is tolerated at the top then it's effectively tolerated everywhere.
- concordDance 7y ago
  > There is always some reason that gets people to deal with a problem and that reason is often objectively kinda shitty The problem is that that reason is the one people think is the reason the problem got dealt with. It has a nasty chilling effect.
- craigsmansion 7y ago
  > and also afraid of plants from someone who actually worked with him: "p.s.: In the closet-sized "office" Bushnell, McGrath, and I shared for a time we did have some spider plants as part of a running silly joke. They did not actually scare RMS away OF COURSE" https://archive.is/7qepC https://archive.is/7qepC

malvosenior 7y ago

I don’t think that’s fair to those who had a problem with RMS. Him arguing about peodophilia on a mailing list does nothing at all to help his ideas spread. It takes quite a lot away in fact. What was the purpose of his argument? To defend his friend Minsky? Again, that does nothing to promote free software, it only adds unneeded and negative baggage. That’s bad leadership and bad for RMS’ message. Yes he had great ideas. They were so great that they exist beyond the man who created them and now benefit from him not being involved.

jnwatson 7y ago
So just because he happens to be the president of an organization means he can’t defend his colleague on an unrelated private message board? The chilling effect of such a policy essentially means that all advocacy groups must be led by slick marketing politicians, always on-point and on-brand, even if off camera.
- zorpner 7y ago
  This is a clear slippery slope fallacy. In this particular instance, all they had to do was not defend pedophiles, blame victims, and repeatedly engage in misogynistic behavior which literally drove women out of their discipline for decades.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "an unrelated private message board?" Was this an unrelated private message board? I was under the impression it was on a mailing list at MIT.
  - ryeights 7y ago
    The list is semi-private, CSAIL-affiliated students and faculty only
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      So not a private message board?
- malvosenior 7y ago
  If he’s defending his colleague having sex with a 17 year old who had been trafficked for sex since she was 15, then yes I don’t think any president of an organization should do that.
  - wander_homer 7y ago
    His entire argument was that it was possible that he had no idea that she was a trafficking victim when she approached him, it could have been a regular prostitute from his point of view. However Stallman didn't downplay the harm that's been done to the girl and he didn't rule out the possibility that his friend indeed knew about all of that.
  - craigsmansion 7y ago
    > If he’s defending That's a big "if" Stallman was reviled not for things he didn't do, but for thoughts he didn't think.
    - flatb 7y ago
      Stallman was reviled because he has been accused, by several independent parties, of, among other things: -Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office. -Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him. -Posting up signs in his workplace along the lines of "Knight for Justice (Also: Hot Ladies)".
      - craigsmansion 7y ago
        > Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office. Even the initial accusation doesn't try to push the story that far: "He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. [..] (the mattress was also known to have shirtless people lounging on it…)" Person has sleeping accommodation in place where he lives (odd thought it may be). Sometimes people use it as chair. No mentions of requests or toplessness. > -Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him. Unsubstantiated: saying something like "I can't imagine life without you" can be interpreted just like that depending on a variety of circumstances. That was also decades ago. > Posting up signs in his workplace along the lines of "Knight for Justice (Also: Hot Ladies)". Really now? Incidentally also the only one of your accusations of which there is evidence instead of hearsay or urban legends. Furthermore, "a sign" not "signs".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mav3rick 7y ago
  Having a leadership position comes with its own checks and balances. RMS isn't special to go over that.
zaphirplane 7y ago
you are wording the sentences to create a vague wrong impression Of what transpired Be specific about what he said that you find abhorrent This topic is uncomfortable and a lot of people stay out of it or strongly self censor. he didn’t.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  > This topic is uncomfortable and a lot of people stay out of it or strongly self censor. he didn’t. This is my point. As the president of an organization it’s not your job to make people uncomfortable about things that have nothing to do with that organization’s goals. Debating what is and is not statutory rape is not a discussion that should take place in any professional or technical environment. This instance is actually even worse than just debating something in the inappropriate context. Epstein is a huge scandal. He raped dozens if not hundreds of girls. He loaned them out to other powerful people. It is within this context that RMS’ statements are most damning. He’s wading in some very murky ethical waters and it should be no surprise he caught a backlash.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > As the president of an organization it’s not your job to make people uncomfortable about things that have nothing to do with that organization’s goals. Did anyone claim it was his job? > Debating what is and is not statutory rape is not a discussion that should take place in any professional or technical environment. Why? > This instance is actually even worse than just debating something in the inappropriate context. Epstein is a huge scandal. He raped dozens if not hundreds of girls. He loaned them out to other powerful people. It is within this context that RMS’ statements are most damning. Why is that? Does the fact that someone commits a crime make it inappropriate to defend people associated with them against incorrect accusations? How do you square that with the rule of law? > He’s wading in some very murky ethical waters and it should be no surprise he caught a backlash. He also should not be surprised that he gets a lot of opposition for promoting free software ... so, supposedly, he should not promote free software either?
  - zaphirplane 7y ago

new_realist 7y ago

OSS predates Stallman, and will outlast him. His contributions are overstated, as is the benefit of Free Software, generally, as compared to more permissive licenses.

flippinburgers 7y ago
Free Software is transparent science. I don't see how you could argue that the benefit is overstated. Ideas are built on one another and that is precisely how advancements are made. What he pushes for is extremely important.
msla 7y ago
> His contributions are overstated, as is the benefit of Free Software, generally, as compared to more permissive licenses. That's certainly what companies which made their fortunes out of taking software out of the commons and turning it into products want people to think. Enough programmers don't want to be turned into unpaid employees that copyleft licenses have substantial uptake. Also: > OSS predates Stallman, and will outlast him. ... refusing to see a distinction between OSS and Free Software? Neat rhetorical trick.
- msla 7y ago
  The downvotes without replies are proof I've hit a nerve, and am saying things others cannot stand because they cannot refute them.
mistrial9 7y ago
I met with Stallman once, in a room of two dozen people, around Stanford in 1987 or so .. I can tell you the "OSS" or whatnot you are referring to, existed in a very different world then. Stallman had a twenty minute talk, which was a strict and tightly worded explanation of the significance and reasoning behind his proposals. It was very much the utter opposite of a two line throw-away judge-and-jury declaration of conclusion, as seen above.
garmaine 7y ago
The term “open source software” was invented by Christine Peterson in 1998 (edit: thanks!) to distinguish from GPL-style free software. Open source (inclusive of both) never really had any traction outside a few limited domains until the GNU project.

ariabuckles 7y ago

It wasn't just this incident. RMS alienated so many women from open source and free software over the last 30 years, and we've lost all of those potential contributions. He's been getting breaks for 30 years. That he has also done some very good things isn't a good argument for continuing to tolerate his harmful behaviour after he's been asked to fix it for literally decades, and hasn't.

sprafa 7y ago
Didn’t know about this. Where can I read more about his behaviour around women?
- ariabuckles 7y ago
  https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman and https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... are good starting points; I also saw threads about it from women MIT alumns on twitter.
  - norcalli 7y ago
    It would be horrifying to have meticulously documented notes on every thing you ever said that may or may not be true, and may or may not have been a joke. If his career had been a comedian and not a FOSS advocate, then would he still be crucified for saying the same things or would he simply be an awful comedian? I would be dollars to doughnuts that the author of that site and the editors of that "wiki" have made or thought worse things at some point, but because they have not reached a certain level of celebrity, there's no dossier on them. It's truly ridiculous to me the amount of effort spent on trying to claw others down. I accept that inequality exists and perhaps RMS has some awful opinions, but if that's the case then just ignore him. If there are people who are choosing to make it incumbent upon themselves to take down these "problematic" individuals, then it must be because they think that all of the systems that have allowed a person to continue to exist despite those opinions must be unreliable in adequately judging them. If that's the case, then wouldn't it be more practical to fix the endemic problem rather than destroy a single person? I'm guessing that the latter is just easier to do and more profitable as well. You gain "credibility" by attacking someone else, so it's difficult to believe that they are doing it for altruistic means. All in all, I'm pretty sick of this nonsense. A world where everyone is constantly being watched by eachother and reported on is already too authoritarian for me to want to continue living in, not to mention the already authoritarian governments doing the same.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

htns 7y ago

Yeah, I wouldn't put anything under a "GPL or any later version" for the time being.

harry8 7y ago
Writing anyone or any organisation a blank cheque is problematic. Even if they are perfection personified now, will they be in the future? Will it be run by none of the same people? Will they have an entirely different agenda to the one you agree with? If you can't know these things with sufficient certainty, definitely pick your license. Then only change it deliberately for your own purposes with your own goals and ideals driving it. Devils advocate: maybe gpl will never have a later version you could possibly disagree with as it's too important to too many people just like you.

knolax 7y ago

I saw a tweet on Mastodon that claimed Git was a "major barrier for people of color" or some other nonsense. Meritocracy is dying here.

pzone 7y ago
That kind of talk always seems downright racist to me.

hinkley 7y ago

Until the latest stink I wasn't even aware that RMS still had a platform. I haven't heard from him in probably 15 years. That may be a good thing. FSF isn't about Richard Stallman. And some of the "kids" that ran him out of town know to keep plants at their desks because it turns out he's kind of a creep around young women, and also afraid of plants. None of that information has anything to do with mailing lists. There is always some reason that gets people to deal with a problem and that reason is often objectively kinda shitty. People overlook it because the problem is finally being addressed. One of the things that's going on in the current political climate is that it's no longer enough to be a great developer but a horrible human being. Development in the 90's was punctuated by some truly titanic man-children that everyone had to 'put up with' because they were just so good at the rest of their job. Gates seems to have grown up (I'm curious what Ballmer has been up to). Jobs, god bless him, died of his own stubbornness. They keep Ellison out of the spotlight, as they seem to have done with Stallman. Until he retires that leaves Torvalds (who I hope outlasts Ellison). I am sure there were points in my life where I could be painted with that brush, and I can say with a bit of authority that we don't need that kind of behavior. And if behavior is tolerated at the top then it's effectively tolerated everywhere.

concordDance 7y ago
> There is always some reason that gets people to deal with a problem and that reason is often objectively kinda shitty The problem is that that reason is the one people think is the reason the problem got dealt with. It has a nasty chilling effect.
craigsmansion 7y ago
> and also afraid of plants from someone who actually worked with him: "p.s.: In the closet-sized "office" Bushnell, McGrath, and I shared for a time we did have some spider plants as part of a running silly joke. They did not actually scare RMS away OF COURSE" https://archive.is/7qepC https://archive.is/7qepC