3 ms·

The FSF did matter. I was a member, I signed copyright papers and submitted a decent amount of patches to GCC, I went to see Stallman talk. It became clear to

The FSF did matter. I was a member, I signed copyright papers and submitted a decent amount of patches to GCC, I went to see Stallman talk. It became clear to me that while I agreed with many of Stallman's aims, I disagreed with how he treated people, particularly women. Also, he actively made decisions that, in my opinion, seriously hurt GCC. So I left.

ddingus 6y ago
Again, are we talking about the ideas or Stallman? None of that even moves the needle on how high value the ideas are for me. What we are basically talking about here is solidarity on software freedom. Acting in solidarity means priorities. This is why I am focused on ideas. Liking people is not as high of a priority as the software freedom is. To put it bluntly: even my enemies, "those other people" benefit from greater software freedoms. Having a strong anchor matters. Stallman is not going to dilute things down or be co-opted. Great. Given the last decade, I definitely value those things highly. You appear to have other priorities. That is fine, but it is also not about software freedom anymore too.
- CJefferson 6y ago
  I'll be honest, I'm a bit annoyed you think I care less about software freedom, because I don't like Stallman. I'd like to separate two things out. I believe it severely hurts the cause of software freedom to have Stallman at the helm. I think software freedom is bigger than any one person, and Stallman has been, for many years, damaging to the cause. Do you think "the ideas or Stallman" are more important?
  - ddingus 6y ago
    It was not my intent to annoy you. It is my intent to understand. Edit: and let us be clear we are just two good people having a tough discussion. I just want to understand you and your position better. I agree software freedom is more than a given person. So far, I have not really seen the ideas put into question here, right? One of the originators of those ideas is in question. And that person has done things others don't like, right? (I think so) From what I can tell, those things are not about the ideas. In my original comment, I had expressed my sincere desire for there to be focus among the people involved to keep it all about the ideas. Not doing that does hurt the cause, because people may find themselves unwilling or unable to be a part of things. You are expressing that, yes? Either that focus happens, or it does not, and we shall see. Re: gcc Stallman would say, fork it and do one better. He is not wrong about that, FWIW. That's the freedom part in play. Does not mean we get what we want. It does mean we can do what we want.
    - CJefferson 6y ago
      You can wish for people to remain focused on the ideas, but it is my strong belief that will not happen. People, in general, do not associate with people they dislike (for person or moral reasons). Even if I was willing to work with Stallman, I believe many, many people will not. If Stallman wished for this to be "just about the ideas", he could have never told jokes about "deflowering female virgins" because they have not used Emacs. I assume he told these kinds of jokes because he hoped it would make him, or the FSF, more popular. He was (in my opinion) wrong.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        Then the ideas will die, and we will relearn these lessons again in the future, hopefully. And they will die because it's just not a priority otherwise. Our opponents know that and absolutely will exploit it. Solidarity on things is hard. It does require dealing with people we do not like, and it often also requires we accept our enemies, and "those other people" benefit same as we do. I entertained this chat to see whether similar dynamics are in play on this matter, and they are. I have experience in this from labor politics. Know when they win? They win with high degrees of solidarity rooted in mutual benefit. They always lose when personal judgement is a higher priority than the mutual benefit is. Put simply, even the assholes need to pay rent, feed the kids, spend time with family, see the doctor, etc. If it is more about who is the bigger asshole than it is the ideas, we will be left with a solid understanding of who the bigger asshole is, not a more robust, solid state of software freedom. Now, that said, don't go blaming Stallman for your own choices. I won't blame him for mine. He said very undesirable things. Lots of people do that, and it would be better if they didn't. As painful as all that is, the hard truth of it has nothing to do with software freedom. I think he can be a ripe ass, frankly. Maybe better choices are in his future. I hope so.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        Thanks, by the way. You are a pretty great discussion partner. Frank open and honest. I appreciate that.

ddingus 6y ago

Again, are we talking about the ideas or Stallman? None of that even moves the needle on how high value the ideas are for me. What we are basically talking about here is solidarity on software freedom. Acting in solidarity means priorities. This is why I am focused on ideas. Liking people is not as high of a priority as the software freedom is. To put it bluntly: even my enemies, "those other people" benefit from greater software freedoms. Having a strong anchor matters. Stallman is not going to dilute things down or be co-opted. Great. Given the last decade, I definitely value those things highly. You appear to have other priorities. That is fine, but it is also not about software freedom anymore too.

CJefferson 6y ago
I'll be honest, I'm a bit annoyed you think I care less about software freedom, because I don't like Stallman. I'd like to separate two things out. I believe it severely hurts the cause of software freedom to have Stallman at the helm. I think software freedom is bigger than any one person, and Stallman has been, for many years, damaging to the cause. Do you think "the ideas or Stallman" are more important?
- ddingus 6y ago
  It was not my intent to annoy you. It is my intent to understand. Edit: and let us be clear we are just two good people having a tough discussion. I just want to understand you and your position better. I agree software freedom is more than a given person. So far, I have not really seen the ideas put into question here, right? One of the originators of those ideas is in question. And that person has done things others don't like, right? (I think so) From what I can tell, those things are not about the ideas. In my original comment, I had expressed my sincere desire for there to be focus among the people involved to keep it all about the ideas. Not doing that does hurt the cause, because people may find themselves unwilling or unable to be a part of things. You are expressing that, yes? Either that focus happens, or it does not, and we shall see. Re: gcc Stallman would say, fork it and do one better. He is not wrong about that, FWIW. That's the freedom part in play. Does not mean we get what we want. It does mean we can do what we want.
  - CJefferson 6y ago
    You can wish for people to remain focused on the ideas, but it is my strong belief that will not happen. People, in general, do not associate with people they dislike (for person or moral reasons). Even if I was willing to work with Stallman, I believe many, many people will not. If Stallman wished for this to be "just about the ideas", he could have never told jokes about "deflowering female virgins" because they have not used Emacs. I assume he told these kinds of jokes because he hoped it would make him, or the FSF, more popular. He was (in my opinion) wrong.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      Then the ideas will die, and we will relearn these lessons again in the future, hopefully. And they will die because it's just not a priority otherwise. Our opponents know that and absolutely will exploit it. Solidarity on things is hard. It does require dealing with people we do not like, and it often also requires we accept our enemies, and "those other people" benefit same as we do. I entertained this chat to see whether similar dynamics are in play on this matter, and they are. I have experience in this from labor politics. Know when they win? They win with high degrees of solidarity rooted in mutual benefit. They always lose when personal judgement is a higher priority than the mutual benefit is. Put simply, even the assholes need to pay rent, feed the kids, spend time with family, see the doctor, etc. If it is more about who is the bigger asshole than it is the ideas, we will be left with a solid understanding of who the bigger asshole is, not a more robust, solid state of software freedom. Now, that said, don't go blaming Stallman for your own choices. I won't blame him for mine. He said very undesirable things. Lots of people do that, and it would be better if they didn't. As painful as all that is, the hard truth of it has nothing to do with software freedom. I think he can be a ripe ass, frankly. Maybe better choices are in his future. I hope so.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      Thanks, by the way. You are a pretty great discussion partner. Frank open and honest. I appreciate that.