7 ms·

For context, I think it's an answer to this open letter from GNU developers: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ https://guix.gnu

by Aissen 7y ago

For context, I think it's an answer to this open letter from GNU developers: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...

nabla9 7y ago
Very anemic list. For example, only one person from GCC steering committee (Ian Lance Taylor)
- zapita 7y ago
  Also not a single woman on that list of Stallman supporters, as far as I can tell. EDIT: I misread, it’s not a letter of support to Stallman. Sorry.
  - nabla9 7y ago
    It's a list of people against RMS.
    - mattl 7y ago
      Not at all. I'm one of the people who signed it.
      - computerex 7y ago
        I'll quote the page since maybe you had trouble reading it: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr... > 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. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to. > We believe that Richard Stallman cannot represent all of GNU. We think it is now time for GNU maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the project. The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom. These are not supporters and the page isn't made in support of RMS.
        mattl 7y ago
        I signed it. I'm not against RMS, I just don't think he should lead GNU. I think the GNU Advisory Committee is better suited to lead things. I believe both the FSF board and the GAC need term limits and I hope they implement them.
        computerex 7y ago
        > I just don't think he should lead GNU That'd classify as being against RMS. You can argue semantics all you want, but with someone else as I am not interested.
        javagram 7y ago
        Are you a different person from the mattl who recently tweeted > Support free software. > Don’t support Stallman. https://twitter.com/mattl/status/1177355118829854720?s=20 https://twitter.com/mattl/status/1177355118829854720?s=20 In any case I think it’s clear the letter is against Stallman retaining the leadership role and therefore in a binary supporter/adversary framing, the signers should not be considered “supporters” of RMS.
        wott 7y ago
        > I'm not against RMS, Go read again all the attacks against RMS you've been spouting along the last weeks, then come back and say that again with a straight face. Unbelievable...
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        > I'm not against RMS, I just don't think he should lead GNU. The second half of that sentence pits you directly against RMS, who has made clear he does not intend to leave his position with GNU.
        qbaqbaqba 7y ago
        And so you have seized the opportunity. Disgusting.
      - nabla9 7y ago
        I think it's clear from the context in what sense you are against RMS. You don't want RMS to continue GNU project leader and representative. RMS wants to continue. You are against RMS.
      - asjw 7y ago
        Well, that's a problem! You should read and understand what you sign, before you do.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - computerex 7y ago
    Quote from the page: > 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. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to. > We believe that Richard Stallman cannot represent all of GNU. We think it is now time for GNU maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the project. The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom. This is not a list of people in support of RMS, they are against RMS.
ng12 7y ago
> Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users The notion that empowered means shielded from opinions you might disagree with seems odd.
- SnarkAsh 7y ago
  [redacted]
  - w0land 7y ago
    Where did it happen that Stallman exposed his penis to somebody? (corrected typo)
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    This whole thing started with a pedantic e-mail and a blogger that got offended and decided to slander RMS. The media then lied about RMS defending a pedophile. And now 'SnarkAsh is implying that RMS was harassing people by exposing his manhood. This is why fighting the cancel mob is so important. Lies accumulate.
    - iamasoftwaredev 7y ago
      > The media then lied about RMS defending a pedophile They should have stuck to the other times he defended pedophilia and child porn instead.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Perhaps they should have. But they didn't. I guess because recycling very old statements wouldn't make for enough of a story, especially not compared to just lying about current events.
    - brirec 7y ago
      > The media then lied about RMS defending a pedophile. Source? I saw an article by John Gruber[0] that retracted some specific allegations about him, saying that for these specific allegations RMS was being conflated with ESR, another known sexual predator who has some fame in the early world of FOSS.I saw nothing lying about him being a pedophile. That came a leaked email to the MIT CSAIL mailing list (which had been confirmed by multiple sources) and from his personal blog, on a widely circulated article. I'd link to the specific one (edit: [2]), but when searching Google for the query 'child pornography site:stallman.org'[1] there are far too many instances of him commenting on child pornography in the news and such — it's a topic he has spoken at lengths about, and advocating for it is not something new for him. The article by John Gruber retracts a specific sexual assault allegation. I don't think that he should be tried or burned at the stake for something that he hasn't done, and I don't personally know any other specific allegations of sexual assault on his behalf either. But to say that the media saying RMS defending a pedophile is a lie is silly. The man's a known pedophile sympathizer, and clearly based on the dates published he doesn't intend to retract any of his own articles proving such any time soon. Also, to be clear, the Vice article that you are thinking of[3] that said he defended a pedophile has an excerpt straight from the CSAIL mailing list that's been confirmed by multiple others. Seriously, click that [1] link and try to say he's not a pedophile sympathizer… [0]: https://daringfireball.net/2019/10/correction_regarding_an_erroneous_allegation https://daringfireball.net/2019/10/correction_regarding_an_e... [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=child+pornography+site%3Astallman.org https://www.google.com/search?q=child+pornography+site%3Asta... [2]: https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html > I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. [3]: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci... Edit: added [2] and [3]. It's not just Emacs that makes RMS a bad person.
marble-drink 7y ago
Oh won't someone think of the poor women...
- dang 7y ago
  We've banned this account for trolling. Could you please not create accounts to break HN's guidelines with? It's not hard to use this site as intended. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
stargrave 7y ago
And my answer to them: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2019-10/msg00005.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2019-...

by Aissen 7y ago

nabla9 7y ago

Very anemic list. For example, only one person from GCC steering committee (Ian Lance Taylor)

zapita 7y ago
Also not a single woman on that list of Stallman supporters, as far as I can tell. EDIT: I misread, it’s not a letter of support to Stallman. Sorry.
- nabla9 7y ago
  It's a list of people against RMS.
  - mattl 7y ago
    Not at all. I'm one of the people who signed it.
    - computerex 7y ago
      I'll quote the page since maybe you had trouble reading it: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr... > 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. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to. > We believe that Richard Stallman cannot represent all of GNU. We think it is now time for GNU maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the project. The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom. These are not supporters and the page isn't made in support of RMS.
      - mattl 7y ago
        I signed it. I'm not against RMS, I just don't think he should lead GNU. I think the GNU Advisory Committee is better suited to lead things. I believe both the FSF board and the GAC need term limits and I hope they implement them.
        computerex 7y ago
        > I just don't think he should lead GNU That'd classify as being against RMS. You can argue semantics all you want, but with someone else as I am not interested.
        javagram 7y ago
        Are you a different person from the mattl who recently tweeted > Support free software. > Don’t support Stallman. https://twitter.com/mattl/status/1177355118829854720?s=20 https://twitter.com/mattl/status/1177355118829854720?s=20 In any case I think it’s clear the letter is against Stallman retaining the leadership role and therefore in a binary supporter/adversary framing, the signers should not be considered “supporters” of RMS.
        wott 7y ago
        > I'm not against RMS, Go read again all the attacks against RMS you've been spouting along the last weeks, then come back and say that again with a straight face. Unbelievable...
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        > I'm not against RMS, I just don't think he should lead GNU. The second half of that sentence pits you directly against RMS, who has made clear he does not intend to leave his position with GNU.
        qbaqbaqba 7y ago
        And so you have seized the opportunity. Disgusting.
    - nabla9 7y ago
      I think it's clear from the context in what sense you are against RMS. You don't want RMS to continue GNU project leader and representative. RMS wants to continue. You are against RMS.
    - asjw 7y ago
      Well, that's a problem! You should read and understand what you sign, before you do.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- computerex 7y ago
  Quote from the page: > 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. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to. > We believe that Richard Stallman cannot represent all of GNU. We think it is now time for GNU maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the project. The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom. This is not a list of people in support of RMS, they are against RMS.

ng12 7y ago

> Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users The notion that empowered means shielded from opinions you might disagree with seems odd.

SnarkAsh 7y ago
[redacted]
- w0land 7y ago
  Where did it happen that Stallman exposed his penis to somebody? (corrected typo)
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  This whole thing started with a pedantic e-mail and a blogger that got offended and decided to slander RMS. The media then lied about RMS defending a pedophile. And now 'SnarkAsh is implying that RMS was harassing people by exposing his manhood. This is why fighting the cancel mob is so important. Lies accumulate.
  - iamasoftwaredev 7y ago
    > The media then lied about RMS defending a pedophile They should have stuck to the other times he defended pedophilia and child porn instead.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Perhaps they should have. But they didn't. I guess because recycling very old statements wouldn't make for enough of a story, especially not compared to just lying about current events.
  - brirec 7y ago
    > The media then lied about RMS defending a pedophile. Source? I saw an article by John Gruber[0] that retracted some specific allegations about him, saying that for these specific allegations RMS was being conflated with ESR, another known sexual predator who has some fame in the early world of FOSS.I saw nothing lying about him being a pedophile. That came a leaked email to the MIT CSAIL mailing list (which had been confirmed by multiple sources) and from his personal blog, on a widely circulated article. I'd link to the specific one (edit: [2]), but when searching Google for the query 'child pornography site:stallman.org'[1] there are far too many instances of him commenting on child pornography in the news and such — it's a topic he has spoken at lengths about, and advocating for it is not something new for him. The article by John Gruber retracts a specific sexual assault allegation. I don't think that he should be tried or burned at the stake for something that he hasn't done, and I don't personally know any other specific allegations of sexual assault on his behalf either. But to say that the media saying RMS defending a pedophile is a lie is silly. The man's a known pedophile sympathizer, and clearly based on the dates published he doesn't intend to retract any of his own articles proving such any time soon. Also, to be clear, the Vice article that you are thinking of[3] that said he defended a pedophile has an excerpt straight from the CSAIL mailing list that's been confirmed by multiple others. Seriously, click that [1] link and try to say he's not a pedophile sympathizer… [0]: https://daringfireball.net/2019/10/correction_regarding_an_erroneous_allegation https://daringfireball.net/2019/10/correction_regarding_an_e... [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=child+pornography+site%3Astallman.org https://www.google.com/search?q=child+pornography+site%3Asta... [2]: https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html > I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. [3]: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci... Edit: added [2] and [3]. It's not just Emacs that makes RMS a bad person.

marble-drink 7y ago

Oh won't someone think of the poor women...

dang 7y ago
We've banned this account for trolling. Could you please not create accounts to break HN's guidelines with? It's not hard to use this site as intended. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

stargrave 7y ago

And my answer to them: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2019-10/msg00005.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2019-...