22 ms·

Joint Statement on the GNU Project

117 points by uncletaco 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
shadowgovt 7y ago
How mechanically centralized is leadership in the GNU project? Does rms sign off on every change? I'm wondering how expensive it would be (assuming he does not want to step down) for the community to fork away from him or route around him.
- jordigh 7y ago
  In practice, GNU is almost nothing. Years ago there was more cohesion, and there are some guidelines that GNU maintainers nominally follow, but in practice each GNU package mostly does its own thing. A lot of decisions are made in a don't-tell-mom kind of way, i.e. we just try to make sure that rms doesn't notice when we do something he doesn't like, such as calling it win32/win64 instead of w32/w64 like he prefers. One of the things I hope will happen with this statement is that we will regain cohesion and we will be able to stand together again like we once did. There's lots of good people in GNU, and I think we need someone like GNU. Principled, uncompromising, and now hopefully friendlier and more helpful than we have been.
  - kellenmurphy 7y ago
    "Uncompromising" and "friendly" are not terms that one typically finds together.
    - jordigh 7y ago
      We can be friendly without having to compromise freedom. We don't have to be friendly to those who would want to use our software to take freedom away from others. We should be friendly to everyone who wants to use our software freely, regardless of their skill level. My view is that GNU should be working towards making sure we can get our software into as many people as possible by giving it an attractive interface, simple installation instructions, and a welcoming community, while at the same time refusing to collaborate with any who wish to proliferate non-free software.
      - virgilp 7y ago
        RMS no longer fits your definition?
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        > We don't have to be friendly to those who would want to use our software to take freedom away from others. We should be friendly to everyone who wants to use our software freely, regardless of their skill level. "We should be friendly, unless we don't like the people using our software"
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance In the specific case of free software, the paradox of tolerance plays out concretely, in that failure to enforce copyleft on software can lead to the creation of software derived from that work that is itself copyrighted in such a way that the deriver could sue an original source creator deriving work from their derivations. I don't think anyone would consider copyleft enforcement "friendly," but the alternative is "free software has no ability to protect its core tenants," so some friendliness must be abridged.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        I agree that enforcing copyleft licenses is extremely necessary. My thought here was that "those who would want to use our software to take freedom away from others" is a bit too broad to apply to just that, especially when considering things like the recent Chef outage. In other words - some people are going to use GNU software to take freedom from others (imagine a prison running Linux, etc) in ways that conform with the license. I do not think GNU should oppose this.
      - wott 7y ago
        And your first friendly act is to 'friendly' take control of the organisation someone else built to host you. That opens a whole perspective of refreshing friendlyism.
  - meijer 7y ago
    So I guess this is just an opportunity for you to get rid of Stallman.
al_form2000 7y ago
What a nice piece of backstabbing. Class.
- ghettoimp 7y ago
  I suppose you could interpret it that way. It reads to me more like a statement of values, going forward.
  - simion314 7y ago
    There is nothing factual on how RMS actually did damage to GNU and how exactly this guys will by magic fix that damage. Seems mostly a PR move and it will probably fracture GNU
    - jlokier 7y ago
      If my feelings are an indicator that mirrors others, I agree that it will likely fracture GNU. Especially if the new leadership cannot recreate the same sense of ideology, purpose, and deeper change that RMS stirred up with his writings. The GNU Manifesto (written by Richard Stallman) was one of the biggest change-my-life documents for me. Probably it was just a matter of timing and luck that it happened to be that document, but it was. It exposed me to new ideas that I could relate to, and really made me think in a new way, a way that is generous and creative towards other people, and that has stayed with me for decades since. It went beyond mere software; my relationships, and the way I treat people, were affected for the better as well. And so I've long been very sympathatic to the FSF/GNU projects and cause. I would have been proud to contribute and operate a project under the GNU banner, and nearly did on several occasions. Since recent announcements, I'm starting to feel different about the FSF/GNU projects. My feelings about the GNU Manifesto and RMS's activist writings have not changed much - there are good and profound ideas in there. But I no longer envisage myself wanting to contribute under the FSF/GNU umbrella, since the last few weeks. I expect there are quite a few people who will feel the same "change" of enthusiasm. The joint statement is very short and doesn't say much. But it says enough, in that second paragraph about RMS, to make me feel wary of wanting to work with any of the people whose names are listed below it. > The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom. The undersigned have shown, with crystal clarity, that they cannot be trusted to defend everyone's freedom, since they blatantly have chosen to not even try to do so in this case. And so we need a new movement, to replace GNU. Ideally, one that everyone can actually trust to defend their freedom.
psankar 7y ago
Genuine question, what exactly do these maintainers want ? Stallman has already quit his leadership role/position, right ?! Is there something more that he or the GNU project needs to do ?
- jordigh 7y ago
  He quit the FSF and MIT. GNU is not the same thing as the FSF, despite their close ties. He has ascertained he still maintains a leadership role in GNU, and he has quite a contingency of devoted followers who think this is all a witch hunt against him.
  - bitwize 7y ago
    It's not just Stallman. This is an attempted systematic ouster of old-school hackers (and new-school hackers with old-school values) from positions of leadership. Stallman is just the latest target and also one of the softest. They have also called for the removal of: * Linus Torvalds (after he apologized and approved the adoption of their code of conduct) * Ted Ts'o * the entire FSF board The problem is that while the old-school hackers were mainly left-liberal or libertarian, more and more open source developers these days come from the San Francisco web dev community and were immersed in the ideals and principles of the social-justice left, for whom "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" is an unstated truism. More struggle sessions and purges are likely to follow, if this contingent is allowed to gain ground, and I fear for a GNU project led by, instead of Stallman or someone who espouses Stallman's liberal ideals, a commissar who strictly polices the use of gender pronouns and scrutinizes every code commit and mailing list post for hidden signs of bourgeois consciousness. These people do not even support free speech. What makes you think they will give a milligram of respect to free software?
    - badrequest 7y ago
      You've whipped up quite a strawman to get angry at, do you have any proof of this conspiracy?
      - 7y ago
coolreader18 7y ago
Wow, so what does this imply? Is this a coup d'état or just a _request_ for Stallman to cede part of his leadership to more people?
- morelisp 7y ago
  I should hope it's a coup. GNU will lose far more if all these people leave frustrated than if RMS is no longer its boss - even if RMS never harasses anyone again (which seems vanishingly unlikely).
- golf2 7y ago
  GNU has clearly outlived its usefulness putting social justice before free software.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    These are not mutually exclusive ideas. In fact, they're complimentary if you turn your head and squint a bit; the Four Freedoms are targeted at minimizing the creation of a classist world where some people control software and others merely run it. Avoidance of a classist world is a "social justice" concept.
    - flukus 7y ago
      The current social justice movements believe in things like deplatforming, they don't have the conviction to defend Freedom #0.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        The Black Hat Conference this year pulled a talk given by Crown Sterling because it was, in the opinion of the people in attendance and security researchers, absolute psuedoscientific trash. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xw9kp/black-hat-talk-about-time-ai-causes-uproar-is-deleted-by-conference https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xw9kp/black-hat-talk-abo... Don't let anyone convince you hackers are anti-deplatforming. They merely disagree on what behaviors or speech are worthy of having a platform.
codesections 7y ago
> We, the undersigned GNU maintainers and developers, … [18 signatures] Does anyone happen to of know what fraction of GNU maintainers those 18 names represent? Does this represent a majority of GNU maintainers or a small fraction?
- jordigh 7y ago
  A small fraction. But an important one. These are some of the biggest names in GNU, like Emacs, libc, gcc, gdb and gpg.
- benji_is_me 7y ago
  Here's [1] the list of contributors to GNU. Note that it also includes past contributors. [1] https://www.gnu.org/people/ https://www.gnu.org/people/
  - uncletaco 7y ago
    Not sure if that list is comprehensive. Neither Ludovic Courtes or John Wiegley are on it (and they are both signatories of the open letter).
    - oknenavin 7y ago
      Maybe it tells us something about the "joint" part? So mob-sad..
      - morelisp 7y ago
        Wiegley has probably done more to make Emacs exciting again than anyone since the XEmacs fork. (Which, hey, speaking of RMS driving off contributors...)
        oknenavin 7y ago
        Sure, but taking part of a political games, doesn't make him a favor.
rowanG077 7y ago
fuck the GNU project. I no longer can take it seriously after the events that have occurred. Disgusting bunch of people.
- nrclark 7y ago
  That "disgusting bunch of people" wrote a ton of the underlying software that powers the internet. You might not like them, but show a little respect.
  - xi18102 7y ago
    Some of them have also been brainwashed by their corporate overlords, who are pushing SJW to keep productive people in check.
  - rowanG077 7y ago
    I don't show respect to people that throw their leader under the bus at the first sign of trouble. They have achieved some cool technical stuff but that is no excuse for being a sad sack of a human.
    - kennywinker 7y ago
      You're literally doing what you describe. Throwing away a bunch of people at the first sign of an action you disagree with.
      - rowanG077 7y ago
        These people are not in any way the leaders of a group I belong to. I'm not part of GNU. So I'm not doing the same thing at all.
        kennywinker 7y ago
        Sorry, I should have said "writing off" not "throwing away"
bitwize 7y ago
If I believed for a second that any successor candidate to lead the GNU project gave as much of a fuck about software and personal freedom as Stallman did/does, I might support them. My confidence that this will transpire, however, is not high.
- jordigh 7y ago
  There are lots of us who care. We can preserve software freedom with the same stubborn, uncompromising attitude without having to also alienate the very people we wish to help.
  - bitwize 7y ago
    And when it's your head that Sarah Mei and Sage Sharp are calling for, will you hold the line?
    - badrequest 7y ago
      They'll never call for my head because I wouldn't suggest that minor-aged victims of sexual assault could have been engaging consensually.
      - bitwize 7y ago
        Neither did Stallman. What he said was that it likely appeared that she was engaging consensually. And he was certainly no fan of Epstein, whom he called a serial rapist. Lest you think this is a niggling distinction, Sage Sharp pronounced Linus guilty of inciting violence by making a humorous comment about his friend Greg Kroah-Hartman's height. (Something like: "Greg is a giant; watch out or he might squish you.") That's how they operate. They go digging to find the six words that will hang you, and if you don't capitulate they go to your boss (read: corporate sponsors if you have your own project).
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        "They." You'll have to be clearer which conspiracy you're talking about; I don't have a binding for that pronoun.
etiam 7y ago
Oh my god. "all computer users" with the implication that Stallman is not representing the ones who demand to go straight to lynch mob behavior without a shadow if due process as soon as the word "sexual" is mentioned? And therefore Stallman should be thrown out of the project that is his creation and life's work? That's got to be one of the most forced political readings ever of that point in the manifesto. Well, if that's the argument, I'm a computer user too and every one of these signatories have just demonstrated themselves unfit to represent me. Enough of the witch hunt, and hands off Richard Stallman's thoroughly earned standing in the GNU project!
- duxup 7y ago
  I don't think that is what they mean by "all computer users". You can not be a part of a lynch mob, and still take issue with Stallman's statements / behavior.
  - meijer 7y ago
    But the lynch mob is still there and defends its cancel culture. You can see them all over Twitter. They are ruthless.
    - duxup 7y ago
      That's not really relevant to what the folks who wrote that letter means by "all computer users".
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Cancel culture isn't a thing. Being held accountable for one's actions and freedom of assocation, those are things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szybEhqUmVI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szybEhqUmVI
  - simion314 7y ago
    I only seen some accusation that appeared now after 20 years , where RMS said something and some people were made uncomfortable. I agree RMS is not a sociable person but I would have preferred to see some significant "crime" , now I have the feeling that you can be kicked out from your own project if you made a stupid comment or thing in the past and the social media gets enraged by mostly FUD and exagerations of your said comment.
xi18102 7y ago
Ok, so Google, RedHat and Microsoft want to take over GNU, like they did with Linux, GitHub, Python and many other projects.
simion314 7y ago
I would suggest GNU people to not rush into decisions, the things are too heated at this moment, I am afraid we get a fracture of the project. I am also having a bad feeling that Linus Torwalds is next, that a list of 20 years old emails is already prepared and some people are ready to tweat something that maybe happened long in the past that made them uncomfortable. Maybe that public apology Linus did this year was a defensive move.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  It is alleged by another controversial figure to have already happened https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/linus_torvalds_targeted_by_honeytraps_says_eric_raymond/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/linus_torvalds_targ...
- badrequest 7y ago
  There are probably a number of people who are attracted to Linus Torvald's attitude and style, but I can assure you the number of people who do not contribute to the Linux kernel because they're turned off by it is significantly larger. It's absolutely in the best interest of the project that he adopt an attitude change permanently or step down. Just as most sports are 90% mental and only 10% physical, managing a large software project is 90% people skills, and only 10% technical.
  - starik36 7y ago
    And yet somehow, Linux is arguably the most successful open source project in the world.
    - otterley 7y ago
      Perhaps, but we do not know how much better it could be today if potential contributors were not dissuaded by the politics and behavior of the existing participants. Popularity is only one gauge of success. There are other metrics, such as personal satisfaction, missing features, or other things that the project may have failed or scored less well on.
romaaeterna 7y ago
So these people speak for all humankind? Wow. I wonder how that works. Is there a certification process? Truly this is a brave group of 20 white men.
- bbanyc 7y ago
  That GNU is nearly all white men is further proof of Stallman's unfit leadership.
  - romaaeterna 7y ago
    Preach it. I am constantly running into underprivileged minority woman who just want to write code under free licenses, but have instead been Stallmanized. Sometimes I can tell that they would like to cry on my shoulder about it, but they don't because they are too strong, of course, being women and also being minorities.
giancarlostoro 7y ago
I always feared this day, I also fear the day Linus steps down / passes away. I don't know who can fill their shoes without them getting too lenient or too carried away.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Smithalicious 7y ago
This statement makes clear to me that I can no longer trust (parts of) the GNU project to prioritize software freedom and making good software over catering to hateful lynchmobs and virtue signalling. There's no meaningful way for me to act on this current, since "boycotting" GNU does nothing to harm these bad elements and I do not contribute back to GNU. I can merely convey my profound disapproval. This is a disgrace. This is no way to treat someone. It's nothing short of utterly disrespectful and self-serving. RMS is, in my view, a completely innocent man; even in the most negative sensible reading of the situation, he is guilty of a minor transgression at most. Even in the most negative sensible reading of supposed transgressions spread over decades, he does not deserve this. RMS has done more to empower all computer users than all of these signees combined. I'm very saddened by this torrent of hate, short-sightedness and obedience to the mob. To me, GNU represents fighting for freedom even if nobody else believes in it; this is the opposite of that.
- codesections 7y ago
  > RMS is, in my view, a completely innocent man Note that the Joint Statement does not take a position on the statements that the most recent controversy has been about. Instead, it speaks about "behavior over the years"[0]. Of course, the recent controversy doubtless played a role in bringing all this to a head, but it is possible for someone to believe both that RMS is "completely innocent" of wrongful conduct and that he has engaged in behavior that harms the cause of Free Software. [0]: > Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users.
  - Smithalicious 7y ago
    Hence why I followed up with saying that that supposed behaviour over the years does not justify this either. But I don't think that behaviour is what this is about to begin with. Everything about this smells of "well, what about that time you ..."; reaching back in time when they can't justify their outrage. A problem is being manufactured to justify bowing to public outrage caused by yellow journalism.
  - 7y ago
excursionist 7y ago
I see claims of users not being 'empowered' and not being able to 'trust' GNU software.. because of Stallman? Sorry, but what does the controversy surrounding Stallmman have to do with user empowerment and trust? Has Stallman been preventing people from using GNU software? Does the trustworthiness of this free, open source software diminish because of Stallman's opinion on some social/political issues that are completely unrelated to software?
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  They aren't completely unrelated to software. One can't divorce community issues from technical issues when the project in question has a "philosophy" page. From said page (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html) """ “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. """ The way rms treats people involved in GNU goes directly to what is meant by 'community.' Consider, as comparative example, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the phrase "all men are created equal," and that it was penned by a slaveowner and did not lead to a government that freed those slaves for over 80 years (regardless of what the words on paper said).
  - excursionist 7y ago
    > One can't divorce community issues from technical issues when the project in question has a "philosophy" page. Anything can have a philosophy. Just because someone is a communist or a feudalist shouldn't prevent them from contributing or being part of a free software project. > The way rms treats people involved in GNU goes directly to what is meant by 'community.' Has RMS done anything to prevent people from using GNU software? Has he attempted to move GNU in a direction that would violate its stated goals or philosophy? Has he made the software any less free or any less respectful of users' freedom and community?
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Based upon past travel hosts' interactions with him, having him visit to speak on the topic can involve you needing to burn the sheets he slept on. Yes, that has material impact on the organization; it decreases people's willingness to hear its leader speak on the topic of what the organization stands for.
dtornabene 7y ago
For anyone coming to this, I can't speak for all of the people on that list, but the ones that I've met personally, over a decade now in the free software world, are decent caring people actually following the creed of freedom to its rightful conclusion. The idea that this is a "witchhunt" is absurd.
- oaiey 7y ago
  I think GNU deserves a leader who is not only strong in freedom advocacy. I hope GNU finds a similar passioned but also humble and emotional capable leader.
- oknenavin 7y ago
  Could you tell us something more about emacs? Decent caring people is not the same as decent creative people.
- marco_salvatori 7y ago
  I cant speak for any of the people on that list either. But if they are committed to the core values of free software and empowerment for all, then its plausible to me that, rather than words in a joint statement, they should fork the FSF. That is the course of action on which the FSF was founded and would be proof positive of their commitment to the core values they profess. They can then proceed to build a better project, with stronger core values, including universal empowerment. There is no one that has to be judged; there are no joint statements that need to be written. That is the wonderful thing about freedom. One can build, perhaps has the obligation to build, the better world that should exist.
mark_l_watson 7y ago
I personally think that Richard Stallman is both not getting fair treatment and to some extent brought this on himself. For me, the GNU project becomes much less interesting without his blog articles, public talks, etc. I had let my FSF membership lapse, was thinking of renewing, and now probably won’t. Off topic, but I enjoyed seeing the leaders of the various GNU projects listed in one place as signers of this letter. I don’t agree with them but it is good to see their names and projects listed.
- wott 7y ago
  > the leaders of the various GNU projects The leaders of selected GNU projects who were likely to share the same opinion and sign. Others were not even informed of this initiative that kind of poses as speaking in their name.
  - mark_l_watson 7y ago
    Thanks, I didn’t know that other contributors were not consulted.
- enriquto 7y ago
  > Off topic, but I enjoyed seeing the leaders of the various GNU projects listed in one place as signers of this letter. I don’t agree with them but it is good to see their names and projects listed. Notice that for most of the big projects, it is not the leader name that appears on that list, but only a particular developer.
falcolas 7y ago
Back when we collectively ousted Brandon Eich from Mozilla, I thought we were doing the right thing. However, that slope is awfully slippery, and we are now ousting people from their own projects for sins that have no real bearing on the project. This isn't making our community better, for there is nobody that exists that doesn't have skeletons in their closets. People are claiming here that they can have just as much an impact on open source as Stallman, but if this is the case, why haven't they already pushed Stallman out on their merits alone? Why has it taken airing Richard Stallman's dirty laundry for them to step up in the community's eyes? Perhaps their sins are less objectionable than Stallman's - more acceptable when combined with their lesser impact than Stallman - but what about tomorrow? Who will replace them when their actions from 20 years ago come back to haunt them? What level me mediocrity will we have to endure in 10 years just to have the least objectionable person possible in a position of power?
- dtornabene 7y ago
  the ability for women to be able to contribute and simply be a part of the free software community without harrassment does not fall under "no real bearing on the project", just so we're clear here.
  - blub 7y ago
    Women will never "be able to contribute and simply be part of the free software community without harassment", because any online community is a reflection of society at large, which is becoming more fragmented, agressive and embittered. Did female harassment get solved in society at large? No. You can't solve it in online communities, you're only building bubbles of false-safety which will pop once the pressure from the real world becomes high enough. America in particular is under so much political and social tension that it's starting to show cracks and online lynch mobs are a part of the problem.
    - bepvte 7y ago
      How would you solve harassment then? If you dont believe in small changes in smaller communities, do you believe that change has to occur in all of society at once?
canarypilot 7y ago
The only joy I get from these threads is in watching a whole bunch of newbies to GNU get upset that politics, social policy, and GNU are intertwined. They have always been! You could at least have the dignity to read Stallman’s writings (a fine start is available at: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html , a more advanced diet is available at Stallman.org ) to understand just how politically charged GNU, the FSF, and Stallman have always been. So now some members of a social movement disagree with the leader of that social movement you feel upset to see social issues discussed? That seems dishonest. Why should any social and political movement remain beholden to one original star of the old guard as the world moves forward. How ought the community respond to a trend to controversy and irrelevance other than by asking Stallman to step aside from the figurehead role? Is the argument here really that once you are a figurehead for a social movement you earn that position for life? I can’t think of any successful movement or organisation for which that has been the case. GNU has always been political, the politics needed to bring software freedom to all users is different now than it was in the 90’s. Some battles have been won, others have been lost hard, new battles have arisen. An honest discussion of whether Stallman is best placed to lead those new battles is overdue.
- blub 7y ago
  There's no one in that project that is such a fanatic and well-known personality that they'd be able to lead it. After being embraced, extended and diluted by corporations, software freedom will slide even more into irrelevance. This also doesn't seem to be a discussion, it's a statement towards Stallman to GTFO.
  - morelisp 7y ago
    > There's no one in that project that is such a fanatic and well-known personality that they'd be able to lead it. Ignorance of the fame and effectiveness of several people on that list says more about your awareness of the current state of the FSF and GNU than it does about those organizations. Werner Koch led FSFE. Ian Jackson led Debian and SPI. Matt Lee is responsible for many of the FSF's major publicity campaigns. Joshua Gay put together Stallman's book. I don't volunteer any of them or have any knowledge of whether they want to run the project, but any of them easily could.
coleifer 7y ago
I see this as an essentially "internet" reaction. It is cowardly in the extreme. I doubt any of these people would say to Stallmans face the things their letter implies. Furthermore twitter etc act as an amplifier for whatever words you throw in it, and as the news networks and talk show hosts figured out years ago, outrage sells. There's also white-knighting, probably a consequence of social awkwardness and discomfort, because nerds grow up but they may not grow out of it. Sad and cowardly, hardly surprising.
zafiro17 7y ago
This conversation went down the rabbit hole. I read the statement, and interpreted it to mean the GNU project should also be a safe place for women programmers. I'm a bit sad the comment that's risen to the top has taken us in a different direction. The fact that this statement remains vague hasn't helped anyone to interpret it with precision.
sprash 7y ago
Many people here talk about "cancel culture" which is in fact a fake culture that is completely artificially generated via paid actors, like some on this list of signatures. Most of the people taking part in the character assasination plot against Stallman running right now work in fact for Saleaforce, IBM or some other FAANG type of organization. You can look it up by yourself. Stallman is a very eccentric person which makes him the perfect target for a devide and conquer operation in order to take ownership of the (hobbyist) FOSS movement. Also ycombinator seems to have an agenda in this too, offing every post about Stallman from the frontpage. Never trust anything you get for free (like this site) except it came from Stallman, I guess.
- t0astbread 7y ago
  > Most of the people taking part in the character assasination plot against Stallman running right now work in fact for Saleaforce, IBM or some other FAANG type of organization Maybe those corporations do a better job at providing an inclusive environment than the free software community? And those people are interested in bringing the same to the FS world. (Whether or not it was necessary to push Stallman out for that, I'm not sure.)
  - xnwdq 7y ago
    The pigs in Animal Farm also did a splendid job on inclusiveness. Amazing how brainwashed people here are by their FAANG salaries.
  - sprash 7y ago
    The FOSS community is about hobbyist recreational programming for FUN. If you want to kill the FUN you introduce COCs, you guilt trip people of a certain gender and race (white male) for simply existing and you create artificial drama via divide and conquer like the current Stallman campagn. Congratulations, mission accomplished, the fun has been eradicated. Inviting the corporate world into FOSS was a grave mistake. The FOSS community should generally exclude everybody who is not fun. Inclusiveness has proven itself to be counterproductive.
    - 7y ago
snvzz 7y ago
As a reminder, a bunch of ludicrous accusations on Stallman[0] is what this is about. [0] https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
enriquto 7y ago
what a slimy bunch of shrieking rats good riddance!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
My company has released several applications under GNU GPLv3 and AGPLv3 licenses, and is preparing to release more. We wouldn't have done this without rms. This 'collective of GNU maintainers'is lying about rms actions undermining the core values of GNU projects. 'Collective' is alienating us from participating in GNU projects and I suggest to remove them from further discussions about the organization of the project.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

117 points by uncletaco 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

How mechanically centralized is leadership in the GNU project? Does rms sign off on every change? I'm wondering how expensive it would be (assuming he does not want to step down) for the community to fork away from him or route around him.

jordigh 7y ago
In practice, GNU is almost nothing. Years ago there was more cohesion, and there are some guidelines that GNU maintainers nominally follow, but in practice each GNU package mostly does its own thing. A lot of decisions are made in a don't-tell-mom kind of way, i.e. we just try to make sure that rms doesn't notice when we do something he doesn't like, such as calling it win32/win64 instead of w32/w64 like he prefers. One of the things I hope will happen with this statement is that we will regain cohesion and we will be able to stand together again like we once did. There's lots of good people in GNU, and I think we need someone like GNU. Principled, uncompromising, and now hopefully friendlier and more helpful than we have been.
- kellenmurphy 7y ago
  "Uncompromising" and "friendly" are not terms that one typically finds together.
  - jordigh 7y ago
    We can be friendly without having to compromise freedom. We don't have to be friendly to those who would want to use our software to take freedom away from others. We should be friendly to everyone who wants to use our software freely, regardless of their skill level. My view is that GNU should be working towards making sure we can get our software into as many people as possible by giving it an attractive interface, simple installation instructions, and a welcoming community, while at the same time refusing to collaborate with any who wish to proliferate non-free software.
    - virgilp 7y ago
      RMS no longer fits your definition?
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > We don't have to be friendly to those who would want to use our software to take freedom away from others. We should be friendly to everyone who wants to use our software freely, regardless of their skill level. "We should be friendly, unless we don't like the people using our software"
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance In the specific case of free software, the paradox of tolerance plays out concretely, in that failure to enforce copyleft on software can lead to the creation of software derived from that work that is itself copyrighted in such a way that the deriver could sue an original source creator deriving work from their derivations. I don't think anyone would consider copyleft enforcement "friendly," but the alternative is "free software has no ability to protect its core tenants," so some friendliness must be abridged.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        I agree that enforcing copyleft licenses is extremely necessary. My thought here was that "those who would want to use our software to take freedom away from others" is a bit too broad to apply to just that, especially when considering things like the recent Chef outage. In other words - some people are going to use GNU software to take freedom from others (imagine a prison running Linux, etc) in ways that conform with the license. I do not think GNU should oppose this.
    - wott 7y ago
      And your first friendly act is to 'friendly' take control of the organisation someone else built to host you. That opens a whole perspective of refreshing friendlyism.
- meijer 7y ago
  So I guess this is just an opportunity for you to get rid of Stallman.

al_form2000 7y ago

What a nice piece of backstabbing. Class.

ghettoimp 7y ago
I suppose you could interpret it that way. It reads to me more like a statement of values, going forward.
- simion314 7y ago
  There is nothing factual on how RMS actually did damage to GNU and how exactly this guys will by magic fix that damage. Seems mostly a PR move and it will probably fracture GNU
  - jlokier 7y ago
    If my feelings are an indicator that mirrors others, I agree that it will likely fracture GNU. Especially if the new leadership cannot recreate the same sense of ideology, purpose, and deeper change that RMS stirred up with his writings. The GNU Manifesto (written by Richard Stallman) was one of the biggest change-my-life documents for me. Probably it was just a matter of timing and luck that it happened to be that document, but it was. It exposed me to new ideas that I could relate to, and really made me think in a new way, a way that is generous and creative towards other people, and that has stayed with me for decades since. It went beyond mere software; my relationships, and the way I treat people, were affected for the better as well. And so I've long been very sympathatic to the FSF/GNU projects and cause. I would have been proud to contribute and operate a project under the GNU banner, and nearly did on several occasions. Since recent announcements, I'm starting to feel different about the FSF/GNU projects. My feelings about the GNU Manifesto and RMS's activist writings have not changed much - there are good and profound ideas in there. But I no longer envisage myself wanting to contribute under the FSF/GNU umbrella, since the last few weeks. I expect there are quite a few people who will feel the same "change" of enthusiasm. The joint statement is very short and doesn't say much. But it says enough, in that second paragraph about RMS, to make me feel wary of wanting to work with any of the people whose names are listed below it. > The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom. The undersigned have shown, with crystal clarity, that they cannot be trusted to defend everyone's freedom, since they blatantly have chosen to not even try to do so in this case. And so we need a new movement, to replace GNU. Ideally, one that everyone can actually trust to defend their freedom.

psankar 7y ago

Genuine question, what exactly do these maintainers want ? Stallman has already quit his leadership role/position, right ?! Is there something more that he or the GNU project needs to do ?

jordigh 7y ago
He quit the FSF and MIT. GNU is not the same thing as the FSF, despite their close ties. He has ascertained he still maintains a leadership role in GNU, and he has quite a contingency of devoted followers who think this is all a witch hunt against him.
- bitwize 7y ago
  It's not just Stallman. This is an attempted systematic ouster of old-school hackers (and new-school hackers with old-school values) from positions of leadership. Stallman is just the latest target and also one of the softest. They have also called for the removal of: * Linus Torvalds (after he apologized and approved the adoption of their code of conduct) * Ted Ts'o * the entire FSF board The problem is that while the old-school hackers were mainly left-liberal or libertarian, more and more open source developers these days come from the San Francisco web dev community and were immersed in the ideals and principles of the social-justice left, for whom "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" is an unstated truism. More struggle sessions and purges are likely to follow, if this contingent is allowed to gain ground, and I fear for a GNU project led by, instead of Stallman or someone who espouses Stallman's liberal ideals, a commissar who strictly polices the use of gender pronouns and scrutinizes every code commit and mailing list post for hidden signs of bourgeois consciousness. These people do not even support free speech. What makes you think they will give a milligram of respect to free software?
  - badrequest 7y ago
    You've whipped up quite a strawman to get angry at, do you have any proof of this conspiracy?
    - 7y ago

coolreader18 7y ago

Wow, so what does this imply? Is this a coup d'état or just a _request_ for Stallman to cede part of his leadership to more people?

morelisp 7y ago
I should hope it's a coup. GNU will lose far more if all these people leave frustrated than if RMS is no longer its boss - even if RMS never harasses anyone again (which seems vanishingly unlikely).
golf2 7y ago
GNU has clearly outlived its usefulness putting social justice before free software.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  These are not mutually exclusive ideas. In fact, they're complimentary if you turn your head and squint a bit; the Four Freedoms are targeted at minimizing the creation of a classist world where some people control software and others merely run it. Avoidance of a classist world is a "social justice" concept.
  - flukus 7y ago
    The current social justice movements believe in things like deplatforming, they don't have the conviction to defend Freedom #0.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      The Black Hat Conference this year pulled a talk given by Crown Sterling because it was, in the opinion of the people in attendance and security researchers, absolute psuedoscientific trash. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xw9kp/black-hat-talk-about-time-ai-causes-uproar-is-deleted-by-conference https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xw9kp/black-hat-talk-abo... Don't let anyone convince you hackers are anti-deplatforming. They merely disagree on what behaviors or speech are worthy of having a platform.

codesections 7y ago

> We, the undersigned GNU maintainers and developers, … [18 signatures] Does anyone happen to of know what fraction of GNU maintainers those 18 names represent? Does this represent a majority of GNU maintainers or a small fraction?

jordigh 7y ago
A small fraction. But an important one. These are some of the biggest names in GNU, like Emacs, libc, gcc, gdb and gpg.
benji_is_me 7y ago
Here's [1] the list of contributors to GNU. Note that it also includes past contributors. [1] https://www.gnu.org/people/ https://www.gnu.org/people/
- uncletaco 7y ago
  Not sure if that list is comprehensive. Neither Ludovic Courtes or John Wiegley are on it (and they are both signatories of the open letter).
  - oknenavin 7y ago
    Maybe it tells us something about the "joint" part? So mob-sad..
    - morelisp 7y ago
      Wiegley has probably done more to make Emacs exciting again than anyone since the XEmacs fork. (Which, hey, speaking of RMS driving off contributors...)
      - oknenavin 7y ago
        Sure, but taking part of a political games, doesn't make him a favor.

rowanG077 7y ago

fuck the GNU project. I no longer can take it seriously after the events that have occurred. Disgusting bunch of people.

nrclark 7y ago
That "disgusting bunch of people" wrote a ton of the underlying software that powers the internet. You might not like them, but show a little respect.
- xi18102 7y ago
  Some of them have also been brainwashed by their corporate overlords, who are pushing SJW to keep productive people in check.
- rowanG077 7y ago
  I don't show respect to people that throw their leader under the bus at the first sign of trouble. They have achieved some cool technical stuff but that is no excuse for being a sad sack of a human.
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    You're literally doing what you describe. Throwing away a bunch of people at the first sign of an action you disagree with.
    - rowanG077 7y ago
      These people are not in any way the leaders of a group I belong to. I'm not part of GNU. So I'm not doing the same thing at all.
      - kennywinker 7y ago
        Sorry, I should have said "writing off" not "throwing away"

bitwize 7y ago

If I believed for a second that any successor candidate to lead the GNU project gave as much of a fuck about software and personal freedom as Stallman did/does, I might support them. My confidence that this will transpire, however, is not high.

jordigh 7y ago
There are lots of us who care. We can preserve software freedom with the same stubborn, uncompromising attitude without having to also alienate the very people we wish to help.
- bitwize 7y ago
  And when it's your head that Sarah Mei and Sage Sharp are calling for, will you hold the line?
  - badrequest 7y ago
    They'll never call for my head because I wouldn't suggest that minor-aged victims of sexual assault could have been engaging consensually.
    - bitwize 7y ago
      Neither did Stallman. What he said was that it likely appeared that she was engaging consensually. And he was certainly no fan of Epstein, whom he called a serial rapist. Lest you think this is a niggling distinction, Sage Sharp pronounced Linus guilty of inciting violence by making a humorous comment about his friend Greg Kroah-Hartman's height. (Something like: "Greg is a giant; watch out or he might squish you.") That's how they operate. They go digging to find the six words that will hang you, and if you don't capitulate they go to your boss (read: corporate sponsors if you have your own project).
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        "They." You'll have to be clearer which conspiracy you're talking about; I don't have a binding for that pronoun.

etiam 7y ago

Oh my god. "all computer users" with the implication that Stallman is not representing the ones who demand to go straight to lynch mob behavior without a shadow if due process as soon as the word "sexual" is mentioned? And therefore Stallman should be thrown out of the project that is his creation and life's work? That's got to be one of the most forced political readings ever of that point in the manifesto. Well, if that's the argument, I'm a computer user too and every one of these signatories have just demonstrated themselves unfit to represent me. Enough of the witch hunt, and hands off Richard Stallman's thoroughly earned standing in the GNU project!

duxup 7y ago
I don't think that is what they mean by "all computer users". You can not be a part of a lynch mob, and still take issue with Stallman's statements / behavior.
- meijer 7y ago
  But the lynch mob is still there and defends its cancel culture. You can see them all over Twitter. They are ruthless.
  - duxup 7y ago
    That's not really relevant to what the folks who wrote that letter means by "all computer users".
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Cancel culture isn't a thing. Being held accountable for one's actions and freedom of assocation, those are things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szybEhqUmVI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szybEhqUmVI
- simion314 7y ago
  I only seen some accusation that appeared now after 20 years , where RMS said something and some people were made uncomfortable. I agree RMS is not a sociable person but I would have preferred to see some significant "crime" , now I have the feeling that you can be kicked out from your own project if you made a stupid comment or thing in the past and the social media gets enraged by mostly FUD and exagerations of your said comment.

xi18102 7y ago

Ok, so Google, RedHat and Microsoft want to take over GNU, like they did with Linux, GitHub, Python and many other projects.

simion314 7y ago

I would suggest GNU people to not rush into decisions, the things are too heated at this moment, I am afraid we get a fracture of the project. I am also having a bad feeling that Linus Torwalds is next, that a list of 20 years old emails is already prepared and some people are ready to tweat something that maybe happened long in the past that made them uncomfortable. Maybe that public apology Linus did this year was a defensive move.

goatinaboat 7y ago
It is alleged by another controversial figure to have already happened https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/linus_torvalds_targeted_by_honeytraps_says_eric_raymond/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/linus_torvalds_targ...
badrequest 7y ago
There are probably a number of people who are attracted to Linus Torvald's attitude and style, but I can assure you the number of people who do not contribute to the Linux kernel because they're turned off by it is significantly larger. It's absolutely in the best interest of the project that he adopt an attitude change permanently or step down. Just as most sports are 90% mental and only 10% physical, managing a large software project is 90% people skills, and only 10% technical.
- starik36 7y ago
  And yet somehow, Linux is arguably the most successful open source project in the world.
  - otterley 7y ago
    Perhaps, but we do not know how much better it could be today if potential contributors were not dissuaded by the politics and behavior of the existing participants. Popularity is only one gauge of success. There are other metrics, such as personal satisfaction, missing features, or other things that the project may have failed or scored less well on.

romaaeterna 7y ago

So these people speak for all humankind? Wow. I wonder how that works. Is there a certification process? Truly this is a brave group of 20 white men.

bbanyc 7y ago
That GNU is nearly all white men is further proof of Stallman's unfit leadership.
- romaaeterna 7y ago
  Preach it. I am constantly running into underprivileged minority woman who just want to write code under free licenses, but have instead been Stallmanized. Sometimes I can tell that they would like to cry on my shoulder about it, but they don't because they are too strong, of course, being women and also being minorities.

giancarlostoro 7y ago

I always feared this day, I also fear the day Linus steps down / passes away. I don't know who can fill their shoes without them getting too lenient or too carried away.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Smithalicious 7y ago

This statement makes clear to me that I can no longer trust (parts of) the GNU project to prioritize software freedom and making good software over catering to hateful lynchmobs and virtue signalling. There's no meaningful way for me to act on this current, since "boycotting" GNU does nothing to harm these bad elements and I do not contribute back to GNU. I can merely convey my profound disapproval. This is a disgrace. This is no way to treat someone. It's nothing short of utterly disrespectful and self-serving. RMS is, in my view, a completely innocent man; even in the most negative sensible reading of the situation, he is guilty of a minor transgression at most. Even in the most negative sensible reading of supposed transgressions spread over decades, he does not deserve this. RMS has done more to empower all computer users than all of these signees combined. I'm very saddened by this torrent of hate, short-sightedness and obedience to the mob. To me, GNU represents fighting for freedom even if nobody else believes in it; this is the opposite of that.

codesections 7y ago
> RMS is, in my view, a completely innocent man Note that the Joint Statement does not take a position on the statements that the most recent controversy has been about. Instead, it speaks about "behavior over the years"[0]. Of course, the recent controversy doubtless played a role in bringing all this to a head, but it is possible for someone to believe both that RMS is "completely innocent" of wrongful conduct and that he has engaged in behavior that harms the cause of Free Software. [0]: > Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users.
- Smithalicious 7y ago
  Hence why I followed up with saying that that supposed behaviour over the years does not justify this either. But I don't think that behaviour is what this is about to begin with. Everything about this smells of "well, what about that time you ..."; reaching back in time when they can't justify their outrage. A problem is being manufactured to justify bowing to public outrage caused by yellow journalism.
- 7y ago

excursionist 7y ago

I see claims of users not being 'empowered' and not being able to 'trust' GNU software.. because of Stallman? Sorry, but what does the controversy surrounding Stallmman have to do with user empowerment and trust? Has Stallman been preventing people from using GNU software? Does the trustworthiness of this free, open source software diminish because of Stallman's opinion on some social/political issues that are completely unrelated to software?

shadowgovt 7y ago
They aren't completely unrelated to software. One can't divorce community issues from technical issues when the project in question has a "philosophy" page. From said page (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html) """ “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. """ The way rms treats people involved in GNU goes directly to what is meant by 'community.' Consider, as comparative example, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the phrase "all men are created equal," and that it was penned by a slaveowner and did not lead to a government that freed those slaves for over 80 years (regardless of what the words on paper said).
- excursionist 7y ago
  > One can't divorce community issues from technical issues when the project in question has a "philosophy" page. Anything can have a philosophy. Just because someone is a communist or a feudalist shouldn't prevent them from contributing or being part of a free software project. > The way rms treats people involved in GNU goes directly to what is meant by 'community.' Has RMS done anything to prevent people from using GNU software? Has he attempted to move GNU in a direction that would violate its stated goals or philosophy? Has he made the software any less free or any less respectful of users' freedom and community?
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Based upon past travel hosts' interactions with him, having him visit to speak on the topic can involve you needing to burn the sheets he slept on. Yes, that has material impact on the organization; it decreases people's willingness to hear its leader speak on the topic of what the organization stands for.

dtornabene 7y ago

For anyone coming to this, I can't speak for all of the people on that list, but the ones that I've met personally, over a decade now in the free software world, are decent caring people actually following the creed of freedom to its rightful conclusion. The idea that this is a "witchhunt" is absurd.

oaiey 7y ago
I think GNU deserves a leader who is not only strong in freedom advocacy. I hope GNU finds a similar passioned but also humble and emotional capable leader.
oknenavin 7y ago
Could you tell us something more about emacs? Decent caring people is not the same as decent creative people.
marco_salvatori 7y ago
I cant speak for any of the people on that list either. But if they are committed to the core values of free software and empowerment for all, then its plausible to me that, rather than words in a joint statement, they should fork the FSF. That is the course of action on which the FSF was founded and would be proof positive of their commitment to the core values they profess. They can then proceed to build a better project, with stronger core values, including universal empowerment. There is no one that has to be judged; there are no joint statements that need to be written. That is the wonderful thing about freedom. One can build, perhaps has the obligation to build, the better world that should exist.

mark_l_watson 7y ago

I personally think that Richard Stallman is both not getting fair treatment and to some extent brought this on himself. For me, the GNU project becomes much less interesting without his blog articles, public talks, etc. I had let my FSF membership lapse, was thinking of renewing, and now probably won’t. Off topic, but I enjoyed seeing the leaders of the various GNU projects listed in one place as signers of this letter. I don’t agree with them but it is good to see their names and projects listed.

wott 7y ago
> the leaders of the various GNU projects The leaders of selected GNU projects who were likely to share the same opinion and sign. Others were not even informed of this initiative that kind of poses as speaking in their name.
- mark_l_watson 7y ago
  Thanks, I didn’t know that other contributors were not consulted.
enriquto 7y ago
> Off topic, but I enjoyed seeing the leaders of the various GNU projects listed in one place as signers of this letter. I don’t agree with them but it is good to see their names and projects listed. Notice that for most of the big projects, it is not the leader name that appears on that list, but only a particular developer.

falcolas 7y ago

Back when we collectively ousted Brandon Eich from Mozilla, I thought we were doing the right thing. However, that slope is awfully slippery, and we are now ousting people from their own projects for sins that have no real bearing on the project. This isn't making our community better, for there is nobody that exists that doesn't have skeletons in their closets. People are claiming here that they can have just as much an impact on open source as Stallman, but if this is the case, why haven't they already pushed Stallman out on their merits alone? Why has it taken airing Richard Stallman's dirty laundry for them to step up in the community's eyes? Perhaps their sins are less objectionable than Stallman's - more acceptable when combined with their lesser impact than Stallman - but what about tomorrow? Who will replace them when their actions from 20 years ago come back to haunt them? What level me mediocrity will we have to endure in 10 years just to have the least objectionable person possible in a position of power?

dtornabene 7y ago
the ability for women to be able to contribute and simply be a part of the free software community without harrassment does not fall under "no real bearing on the project", just so we're clear here.
- blub 7y ago
  Women will never "be able to contribute and simply be part of the free software community without harassment", because any online community is a reflection of society at large, which is becoming more fragmented, agressive and embittered. Did female harassment get solved in society at large? No. You can't solve it in online communities, you're only building bubbles of false-safety which will pop once the pressure from the real world becomes high enough. America in particular is under so much political and social tension that it's starting to show cracks and online lynch mobs are a part of the problem.
  - bepvte 7y ago
    How would you solve harassment then? If you dont believe in small changes in smaller communities, do you believe that change has to occur in all of society at once?

canarypilot 7y ago

The only joy I get from these threads is in watching a whole bunch of newbies to GNU get upset that politics, social policy, and GNU are intertwined. They have always been! You could at least have the dignity to read Stallman’s writings (a fine start is available at: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html , a more advanced diet is available at Stallman.org ) to understand just how politically charged GNU, the FSF, and Stallman have always been. So now some members of a social movement disagree with the leader of that social movement you feel upset to see social issues discussed? That seems dishonest. Why should any social and political movement remain beholden to one original star of the old guard as the world moves forward. How ought the community respond to a trend to controversy and irrelevance other than by asking Stallman to step aside from the figurehead role? Is the argument here really that once you are a figurehead for a social movement you earn that position for life? I can’t think of any successful movement or organisation for which that has been the case. GNU has always been political, the politics needed to bring software freedom to all users is different now than it was in the 90’s. Some battles have been won, others have been lost hard, new battles have arisen. An honest discussion of whether Stallman is best placed to lead those new battles is overdue.

blub 7y ago
There's no one in that project that is such a fanatic and well-known personality that they'd be able to lead it. After being embraced, extended and diluted by corporations, software freedom will slide even more into irrelevance. This also doesn't seem to be a discussion, it's a statement towards Stallman to GTFO.
- morelisp 7y ago
  > There's no one in that project that is such a fanatic and well-known personality that they'd be able to lead it. Ignorance of the fame and effectiveness of several people on that list says more about your awareness of the current state of the FSF and GNU than it does about those organizations. Werner Koch led FSFE. Ian Jackson led Debian and SPI. Matt Lee is responsible for many of the FSF's major publicity campaigns. Joshua Gay put together Stallman's book. I don't volunteer any of them or have any knowledge of whether they want to run the project, but any of them easily could.

coleifer 7y ago

I see this as an essentially "internet" reaction. It is cowardly in the extreme. I doubt any of these people would say to Stallmans face the things their letter implies. Furthermore twitter etc act as an amplifier for whatever words you throw in it, and as the news networks and talk show hosts figured out years ago, outrage sells. There's also white-knighting, probably a consequence of social awkwardness and discomfort, because nerds grow up but they may not grow out of it. Sad and cowardly, hardly surprising.

zafiro17 7y ago

This conversation went down the rabbit hole. I read the statement, and interpreted it to mean the GNU project should also be a safe place for women programmers. I'm a bit sad the comment that's risen to the top has taken us in a different direction. The fact that this statement remains vague hasn't helped anyone to interpret it with precision.

sprash 7y ago

Many people here talk about "cancel culture" which is in fact a fake culture that is completely artificially generated via paid actors, like some on this list of signatures. Most of the people taking part in the character assasination plot against Stallman running right now work in fact for Saleaforce, IBM or some other FAANG type of organization. You can look it up by yourself. Stallman is a very eccentric person which makes him the perfect target for a devide and conquer operation in order to take ownership of the (hobbyist) FOSS movement. Also ycombinator seems to have an agenda in this too, offing every post about Stallman from the frontpage. Never trust anything you get for free (like this site) except it came from Stallman, I guess.

t0astbread 7y ago
> Most of the people taking part in the character assasination plot against Stallman running right now work in fact for Saleaforce, IBM or some other FAANG type of organization Maybe those corporations do a better job at providing an inclusive environment than the free software community? And those people are interested in bringing the same to the FS world. (Whether or not it was necessary to push Stallman out for that, I'm not sure.)
- xnwdq 7y ago
  The pigs in Animal Farm also did a splendid job on inclusiveness. Amazing how brainwashed people here are by their FAANG salaries.
- sprash 7y ago
  The FOSS community is about hobbyist recreational programming for FUN. If you want to kill the FUN you introduce COCs, you guilt trip people of a certain gender and race (white male) for simply existing and you create artificial drama via divide and conquer like the current Stallman campagn. Congratulations, mission accomplished, the fun has been eradicated. Inviting the corporate world into FOSS was a grave mistake. The FOSS community should generally exclude everybody who is not fun. Inclusiveness has proven itself to be counterproductive.
  - 7y ago

snvzz 7y ago

As a reminder, a bunch of ludicrous accusations on Stallman[0] is what this is about. [0] https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/

enriquto 7y ago

what a slimy bunch of shrieking rats good riddance!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago

My company has released several applications under GNU GPLv3 and AGPLv3 licenses, and is preparing to release more. We wouldn't have done this without rms. This 'collective of GNU maintainers'is lying about rms actions undermining the core values of GNU projects. 'Collective' is alienating us from participating in GNU projects and I suggest to remove them from further discussions about the organization of the project.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]