3 ms·

https://www.zdnet.com/article/return-of-stallman-to-fsf-sparks-outrage-among-open-source-and-free-software-leaders/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/return-of-stal

https://www.zdnet.com/article/return-of-stallman-to-fsf-sparks-outrage-among-open-source-and-free-software-leaders/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/return-of-stallman-to-fsf-spar... >Kat Walsh, a FSF board member and technology attorney tweeted, "for whatever it's worth, I did not support the decision to reinstate RMS. I made my arguments and placed my opposing vote; while I was glad I was able to do that I regret not being able to turn the decision the other way." I wonder what the next step will be in the corporate takeover of free software? If they're all just gonna leave that seems like a suspiciously good outcome.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ip34162 6y ago
FOSS doesn't depend on the FSF Board. There are many in the FOSS community that want RMS removed. https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/23/outreachy-fsf/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/23/outreachy-fsf/ https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ . . Also the FSF members weren't made aware of RMS's comeback. That's shitty behaviour. https://twitter.com/fsf/status/1374399897558917128 https://twitter.com/fsf/status/1374399897558917128 . . Partial reasons as to why this is happening: [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287006 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26545420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26545420 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535789
- bondarchuk 6y ago
  I don't believe those are the actual underlying reasons. This kind of smear campaign is just a means to an end. RMS is anti-corporate and pro end-user. Free software has turned out to be immensely useful for big corporations, but mostly because it's free, not because it empowers the end-user. You would expect leftists to be in favour of empowering the end-user, but evidently not. I think it's because RMS is an old-style anarchist type leftist, while these new social justice type leftists are rather authoritarian and allied to big corporations as such.
  - caeril 6y ago
    After seeing every single member of the Fortune 500 shill for BLM last summer, this analysis rings true. Corporate power doesn't care about black lives, as several of the most adamant BLM shills run business models predicated significantly on black lives dying in cobalt mines and/or the associated sectarian wars over resources, or on busting unions of largely African immigrant labor. Similarly, it's laughable to think that the FOSS community members who work for Apple, IBM, Amazon, Google, or anyone else on that list would give a single shit about some socially-inept guy making awkward passes at women while they quietly endorse whatever China feels like doing to the Uyghurs or Hong Kong dissidents, and quietly cover up the endless sexual harassment scandals of their own C-suites. It's never been about social justice. Social Justice is a convenient tool they've found to further entrench their naked power. Don't think for half a second that they wouldn't immediately ditch it to support Hitler Part Deux if their internal strategy analysis indicated that doing so would gain them more power, control, and profits.
    - verall 6y ago
      People act like BLM asked for the corporate shilling. They asked for police reform. Corporations saw a chance to sell a little bit of virtue signal to Middle America.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    Contra: > The idea that someone who does enough "good work" earns a pass for inappropriate behaviour is pervasive, and fosters environments where abusers can prosper. People who hold this belief shouldn't be involved in running organisations. * https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1374093150101200896 https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1374093150101200896 Other folks who did a lot of philanthropy: Jeffrey Epstein, David Koch, the Sackler family (of opioid epidemic noterietay), Harvey Weinstein, Roger Ailes, Bill Cosby, Michael Pearson, Raj Rajaratnam, Bernard Madoff, Ken Lay (of Enron). * https://www.worth.com/the-10-most-toxic-philanthropists/ https://www.worth.com/the-10-most-toxic-philanthropists/ * https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/harvey-weinstein-bill-cosby-and-the-cloak-of-charity https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/harvey-weinstei...
- jeegsy 6y ago
  Consensus is difficult to assess or believe when the price of dissent is so very high.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ip34162 6y ago

FOSS doesn't depend on the FSF Board. There are many in the FOSS community that want RMS removed. https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/23/outreachy-fsf/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/23/outreachy-fsf/ https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ . . Also the FSF members weren't made aware of RMS's comeback. That's shitty behaviour. https://twitter.com/fsf/status/1374399897558917128 https://twitter.com/fsf/status/1374399897558917128 . . Partial reasons as to why this is happening: [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287006 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26545420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26545420 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535789

bondarchuk 6y ago
I don't believe those are the actual underlying reasons. This kind of smear campaign is just a means to an end. RMS is anti-corporate and pro end-user. Free software has turned out to be immensely useful for big corporations, but mostly because it's free, not because it empowers the end-user. You would expect leftists to be in favour of empowering the end-user, but evidently not. I think it's because RMS is an old-style anarchist type leftist, while these new social justice type leftists are rather authoritarian and allied to big corporations as such.
- caeril 6y ago
  After seeing every single member of the Fortune 500 shill for BLM last summer, this analysis rings true. Corporate power doesn't care about black lives, as several of the most adamant BLM shills run business models predicated significantly on black lives dying in cobalt mines and/or the associated sectarian wars over resources, or on busting unions of largely African immigrant labor. Similarly, it's laughable to think that the FOSS community members who work for Apple, IBM, Amazon, Google, or anyone else on that list would give a single shit about some socially-inept guy making awkward passes at women while they quietly endorse whatever China feels like doing to the Uyghurs or Hong Kong dissidents, and quietly cover up the endless sexual harassment scandals of their own C-suites. It's never been about social justice. Social Justice is a convenient tool they've found to further entrench their naked power. Don't think for half a second that they wouldn't immediately ditch it to support Hitler Part Deux if their internal strategy analysis indicated that doing so would gain them more power, control, and profits.
  - verall 6y ago
    People act like BLM asked for the corporate shilling. They asked for police reform. Corporations saw a chance to sell a little bit of virtue signal to Middle America.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  Contra: > The idea that someone who does enough "good work" earns a pass for inappropriate behaviour is pervasive, and fosters environments where abusers can prosper. People who hold this belief shouldn't be involved in running organisations. * https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1374093150101200896 https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1374093150101200896 Other folks who did a lot of philanthropy: Jeffrey Epstein, David Koch, the Sackler family (of opioid epidemic noterietay), Harvey Weinstein, Roger Ailes, Bill Cosby, Michael Pearson, Raj Rajaratnam, Bernard Madoff, Ken Lay (of Enron). * https://www.worth.com/the-10-most-toxic-philanthropists/ https://www.worth.com/the-10-most-toxic-philanthropists/ * https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/harvey-weinstein-bill-cosby-and-the-cloak-of-charity https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/harvey-weinstei...
jeegsy 6y ago
Consensus is difficult to assess or believe when the price of dissent is so very high.