15 ms·

Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

223 points by arrizalamin 6y ago

gopiandcode 6y ago
Software that removes the freedoms of its users is a moral injustice and the FSF has always fought against such injustice. I don’t see how capitulating to lies to satisfy a witch hunt based on slander, and thereby perpetuate an injustice, would help strengthen FSF’s commitment to fighting against the injustice of proprietary software. If all it takes for the FSF to stand by injustice is a misinformation campaign and sufficient bad PR, then what happens when proprietary companies start applying the same tactics to free software? will the FSF step back again, to avoid accruing too much bad PR? Sometimes in life it is difficult to make the right decision, but we must do it nonetheless.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  I wouldn't call it slander. - Stallman is a divisive figure, with questionable opinions outside the realm of free software, opinions he published himself, willingly. - He multiple times ignored the contributions of women, and did so after being corrected. - Lots of women feel uncomfortable close to him due to his behavior. Some of that may be involuntary. - The board reinstated him without an announcement, prior discussion involving the broader community. The announcement surprised everyone except the board and the host event had do clarify they were not part of it. - He refuses to acknowledge how all these things damage the reputation of the FSF. All this could be avoided by doing absolutely nothing. He resigned, after all.
  - gopiandcode 6y ago
    Have you read the open letter? The points you list above are a lot more milquetoast than the "evidence" against RMS that was posted on the open letter - it performs such disingenuous actions as quoting statements that RMS has since retracted or changed, refusing to admit the fact that he has changed; mischaracterising his suggestion of alternative pronouns as a transphobic attack when in fact RMS has stated that he himself will respect people's personal pronouns; underplaying the vicious media attack that was launched against him. While the claims you make in your comment might not be slander, the open letter is much less nuanced, and strays a lot closer to that line.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      The point remains the FSF board would have better executed its mission of protecting the FSF by doing absolutely nothing. There was no desperate need to reinstate Stallman. Have they failed to produce any other leaders inside the organization that could take it and move it forward? Isn't there anyone else who could lead it? Stallman won't be able to front it forever and he already conveniently stepped aside. He's still the founder of the movement, and that he'll always be, but the noise he created for no good reason makes it clear he's unfit to lead this movement.
      - yesenadam 6y ago
        Every word of that seems right to me, but – You don't seem to care if the anti-RMS petition was slander or not. Whether it was all true or all false. The person who wrote it also seems not to care. Why not?! I read it and looked into its claims, and was very surprised that none of them seemed to actually be true. The people who signed it presumably took its truth on faith, like you seem to be doing. Either that or you and they don't care. Imagine for a second it was you being slandered in such a way. After totally transforming your field for the better, around the world!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
rzwitserloot 6y ago
From the linked article: > Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software > Our opponent’s true target is not Richard Stallman; their real aim is to destroy the FSF by thoroughly infiltrating it (like they already have with organisations like the OSI and Linux Foundation). These people even started an online petition calling for RMS’s forceful removal and for the entire board of directors at the FSF to resign from their posts. So, you're either forced to defend Richard Stallman and accept what's going on over there, or __YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF ALL OPEN SOURCE__. What a load of trash.
- aokiji 6y ago
  How much are you getting paid for this astro-turfing? Is it the CIA?
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  The way the ideology behind free software is intertwined and inspired by free speech, one feeds from the other.
  - throwaways885 6y ago
    Yup! You cannot have the FSF without free speech. Creating petitions to excommunicate RMS & other supporters just does not jive with the organisation's founding principles. I'm not going to defend Stallman's comments - they are extremely dubious at best - but I do not agree with trying to bully him out of the movement he helped build. If he really is problematic, you can just 'fork' off and create your own FSF equivalent.
    - EdwardDiego 6y ago
      Free speech never implied freedom from consequences though - this isn't the government suppressing RMS, it's people reacting to his free speech and deciding that they don't like it. That's how it works.
      - lelanthran 6y ago
infinityplus1 6y ago
How about just ask the guy directly? What are his current views?
- sdevonoes 6y ago
  Wondering why this got downvoted. It makes sense.
- sgt 6y ago
  I don't think contacting rms is as straight forward as you would think.
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    I usually do it by chanting "XEmacs" three times while looking into a mirror.
  - Y_Y 6y ago
    It couldn't be easier. His email is rms@gnu.org and afaik he is very good for replying.
    - tomcooks 6y ago
      Can confirm. He even replied to me when, as a noob kid, asked him whether I should choose vi or emacs as my editor.
      - bombcar 6y ago
        Which did he say?
        tomcooks 6y ago
        Trying to remember (a very long time passed), he was very kind and patiently told me that it's important to use the tool that works best for you. He added that for obvious reasons he uses emacs. A proper saint.
approxim8ion 6y ago
Complete hogwash, but whatever. Stallman defenders would do well to not overstate his and the FSF's present (not historical) importance to the software community in addition to understating his views and the things he did.
- aokiji 6y ago
  Nice arguments you provided. Are you part of the Marxist subversion web that is trying to shove "Code of Conduct" political witch-hunt tools into the software world? Trying to follow Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch's vision of controlling every aspect of human life?
- basilgohar 6y ago
  Say what you will about the man personally, but his prescience with regards to the trends of industry and its attacks on personal freedom with regards to software and hardware have been very accurate, oftentimes decades ahead of when the effects are widely understood. His disconnection from average people can sometimes be explained because of how differently he thinks about things – usually in an absolutist sense, which is very alienating. But his contributions to the software community, even if not directly through software commits, but through advocacy and ensuring the fundamental freedoms are preserved, are still being reaped to this day. The same thing goes for the FSF, which, having been founded by him, has a similar worldview. It may not be pragmatic towards startups that want to profit from artificial digital scarcity, but those same startups and other businesses have profited immeasurable through FSF's defense of software freedoms. Would the world really be better off if the Microsofts, Oracles, and others of their ilk still had the same grasp on the user experience of software? Neither Android, AWS, nor countless other staples of billions of peoples' lives and livelihoods would be a thing if not for the early and ongoing defense of software freedom that the FSF has provided.
- ByTheBook 6y ago
  What exactly did he do ? From what I've gathered he gave out cards which was basically an invitation to a date with him should anyone be interested, and he made a very ill-concieved statement regarding harm from children having sex with adults. A really stupid comment but hardly something that would warrant this kind of response, at least unless he doubled down on it. Is this all ?
joe45643234 6y ago
Finally organizations showing their support. Although the number of individuals who defend RMS is already more than twice the people who are anti-RMS and still growing, its nice to see organizations joining to defend RMS.
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  Where are you maintaining this score, out of curiosity?
  - icha 6y ago
    There is a support letter hosted on github: https://rms-support-letter.github.io/ https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
    - cbm-vic-20 6y ago
      Hosted on GitHub, a business (now a division of Microsoft) whose core is centered around the "Tivoization" of a GPL-licensed program. Ironic.
  - lelanthran 6y ago
    It's in the linked letters of support FTFA. There is less support for firing RMS than there is for keeping him, even though the people signing the "keep" are face negative consequences or supporting the FSF's goals.
    - andrewshadura 6y ago
      You mean hundreds of anonymous GitHub accounts or absolutely nobodies are risking something, as opposed to people who have proven track record of actually doing real work in the world of free software? Just wow.
      - icha 6y ago
        Oh, wow. Maybe if you actually skimmed through the list of supporters you'd find that they're real people with real jobs strongly interested in FOSS from all around the world? Or are you, perhaps, a jingoistic xenophobe for whom only American opinions matter?
antman 6y ago
Any background or events regarding the OSI and Linux infiltrations mentioned?
max1truc 6y ago
> The list that attacks Richard has Microsoft, Google, OSI, Linux Foundation, Gnome Foundation and Ethical Source people on it! These people oppose Free Software ideologically What ? The Linux Foundation ? It opposes Free Software ? Did I misunderstand this sentence ?
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  Don't forget Red Hat, a company that makes it living from FOSS, apparently now also hates FOSS...
  - prepend 6y ago
    There’s multiple angles. I think RedHat is more for PR for IBM. I don’t think it’s binary in that RedHat is owned by a company that has other motivations than when RedHat was independent.
    - EdwardDiego 6y ago
      Red Hat is still largely independent of IBM.
      - prepend 6y ago
        True, but I think there’s “cancel risk” (or whatever you call it) to IBM were RedHat to do something like sell software to ICE or whatever is an action that people boycott/campaign on. People were threatening Microsoft because of GitHub’s actions. I think it’s reasonable that a lawyer at IBM identified this area to message whatever is supposed to be right and talked with RedHat to coordinate signing or whatnot. I think it’s weird that corporations make these kinds of moral/ethical statements.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      RedHat has been on the road it's on long before the acquisition by IBM.
    - akagusu 6y ago
shadowgovt 6y ago
> Despite the name, Ethical Source licenses are in fact non-free because they put restrictions on usage of the software; if the author of such software disagrees with your political views, they can ban you from using the software. That strikes me as a weird distinction for somebody who supports copyleft to make. Is the difference that the political view that copyleft licenses support is limited to the issue of redistribution and modification of code? Edit: I follow the author's reasoning now - they're using "non-free" in the Four Fundamental Software Freedoms technical sense.
- Nursie 6y ago
  No, it's because it puts restrictions on use. Open source does not.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    The GPL does put restriction on use. If you make modification to the code and do not share those modifications, you are constrained from using the code you modified. And those constraints are for political reasons. The Four Freedoms are a political ideology about how software, developers, and users should morally interact, and the GPL exists as a legal tool to support this political ideology. Edit: clarification - by "use" here, I'm including "bundle it into a black box of hardware and sell that hardware."
    - lelanthran 6y ago
      > The GPL does put restriction on use. No, it does not. It places restrictions on redistribution, not on use. You can use it no matter who or what you are. > If you make modification to the code and do not share those modifications, you are constrained from using the code you modified. Incorrect. You can modify and use it to your hearts content. You are only required to share your modifications source if you distribute the modified software.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
sgt 6y ago
"Clearly, they/them is commonly understood and will cause the least amount of misunderstanding." While I support this campaign and I support RMS right to free speech, I find it ridiculous that everyone is now expected to use they/them pronouns for non-binaries etc. Am I the only one or has the world gone absolutely batshit insane, driven by purple haired Twitter trans-extremists?
- mseepgood 6y ago
  How else do you refer to non-binary people?
  - sgt 6y ago
    He or she, depending what the person looks like. I'm not going to use they/them, the same way I'm not going to force someone else to refer to me as "my lord".
    - prepend 6y ago
      Comically I was registering for an event and they required a prefix with choices “Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, My lord” and like a hundred other prefixes for fancy people. I was surprised that there wasn’t a non-gendered prefix to call someone by unless they have some prefix due to training or station. “Honorable” and “Dr” have requirements before use.
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mx_(title) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mx_(title)
    - no-s 6y ago
      > He or she, depending what the person looks like. Well, that may be perceived as insulting by the addressee, and they might have a point. The previous consensus was not to presume offense. Too bad we can't all efficiently communicate in a polite language free from irrelevant embedded idiosyncratic perceptual distinctions, so as to avoid giving and taking offense. Yet for some reason we are required instead to recognize new distinctive pronouns and use them consistently or face ostracism. A forced consensus is a false consensus. > the same way I'm not going to force someone else to refer to me as "my lord". And there's a good point. Forcing others to use a form of arbitrarily self-determined address and banding together to ostracize and punish the uncooperative is uncomfortably similar to just plain old elitist bullying. I understand the thesis is to show respect for the addressee, but insisting and threatening is to transform it into a transaction of dominance and submission. Some argue that to respond by identifying as a surface-to-air missile is just a glib insult, not satirical criticism of the implied superiority expressed as reductio ad absurdum.
EdwardDiego 6y ago
RMS is a grown-up, he talked his way into this mess, he can talk his way out. Might involve compromise though, so good luck with that. But seriously, it's on him to fix this. If he doesn't believe he needs to, then well, he can go sit with Brendan Eich in the "intelligent, but unwise" corner.
- caslon 6y ago
  Comparing Stallman to Eich is a bit weird, isn't it? Stallman hasn't actually done anything harmful; he's just terrible socially.
  - robert_foss 6y ago
    I'm a bit unfamiliar with Eich, what has he done?
    - caslon 6y ago
      He funded a group trying to prevent homosexuals from having equal rights with everyone else. Regardless of your ethical views on the subject of homosexuals, it's wrong to try and prevent anyone from having freedom, especially in such an undemocratic way as throwing money at it.
      - Glavnokoman 6y ago
        That is pretty sick description of what happened. To be precise he donated 1000$ to some org which opposes the gay marriage.
        caslon 6y ago
        I described it completely accurately.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
happytoexplain 6y ago
The writeup begins, "known Thought Criminal Richard M Stallman was falsely accused". So, it immediately implies, using sarcasm, that there is not another potentially valid opinion on this topic, and makes sure anybody with another opinion feels antagonized. I'm not defending any articles with an opposite position - I'm just criticizing this writeup.
- md_ 6y ago
  I honestly thought this blog post was parody, until I realized it was way too long to be anything but genuine. Sigh.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Latty 6y ago
Any article that just dismisses the issues with Stallman as a smear and tells you not to listen to them without showing why they are wrong instantly seems to have little intent to engage on the facts. This reads like an absurd conspiracy theory. Stallman had some good ideas about software, it doesn't mean he doesn't have bad ideas about other things (like consent), and if so we should continue to pursue the good ideas and throw out the bad. No individual is FOSS software, and equating the two is foolish at best.
- jstanley 6y ago
  > it doesn't mean he doesn't have bad ideas about other things (like consent) But does he have bad ideas about things like consent?
  - Latty 6y ago
    Well, my point was that this article actively avoids answering that question. From what I can see, yes, he does. He seems to take the position that children should be able consent to sex with adults, which fundamentally makes contributors less safe, and in my opinion is worthy of removing him from positions of leadership. His comments (from https://web.archive.org/web/20210325013844/https://stallman.org/archives/2017-sep-dec.html#13_November_2017_(Jelani_Maraj) https://web.archive.org/web/20210325013844/https://stallman.... ): > Due to the vagueness of the term "sexual assault" together with the dishonest law that labels sex with adolescents as "rape" even if they are willing, we cannot tell from this article what sort of acts Maraj was found to have committed. So we can't begin to judge whether those acts were wrong. > I see at least three possibilities. Perhaps those acts really constituted rape — it is a possibility. Or perhaps the two had sex willingly, but her parents freaked out and demanded prosecution. Or, intermediate between those two, perhaps he pressured her into having sex, or got her drunk. It is fundamentally dangerous to offer abusers the opportunity to claim it was all willing, which is why the law makes it always rape. If you choose to break that law, that's on you and you deserve to be treated as an abuser. This position of regarding the ability to sleep with under-aged people as more important than defending under-aged people from abusers is one incompatible with keeping a community safe, in my opinion.
EdwardDiego 6y ago
Hate to say it, but sorta reads like the Unabomber manifesto, just angrier, and less pedantically correct usage if idioms.
TravelPiglet 6y ago
Was this inspired by Trump :) Sound more of an attempt to discredit the rest of the open source community for not being "pure" enough.
Sporktacular 6y ago
/Blah
SiempreViernes 6y ago
Top ranked on the classic frontpage, but not the main one. I guess this is one of those generational issues?
- hntrader 6y ago
  How do you view the classic front-page?
  - SiempreViernes 6y ago
    just put /classic at the end of the base url.
resonanttoe 6y ago
Curious timing for libreboot/Leah. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26638037 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26638037
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
So one thing I'm noting here is that this letter has a heavy translation/international bent. Additionally, an extremely large portion of signers have Russian-language names, for example. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I have ever talked to or worked with in FOSS software has signed the "opposes RMS" letter, and I can't find anyone I recall or have even heard of on this one. But of course, I mostly have worked with people in the English-speaking world. Does this sort of suggest language or culture is where the divide on this issue might stand?
- efficax 6y ago
  The author, Leah Rowe, is English as far as I know
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    I was not, by any means, suggesting nobody who supports RMS is from any given country, merely that internationalization efforts on the support letter may have given it a larger reach, or possibly reflect cultural views not reflected by the open letter.
- bm3719 6y ago
  Slavic languages, and correspondingly their names, are common in dozens of countries besides Russia. You probably have a sizable minority of them in your own country. The support letter is indeed more international and representative of the larger development community. I'd say this reflects well on rms, since he obviously has a wider support base. His opponents seem to represent a specific subculture that only exists in the West. If you're only surrounded by these types, then you might be the one in a bubble.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    "Slavic" was the word I was looking for, thank you. I am definitely aware such names are common in a wide geographic area. I do think there may be an untested theory on whether the support letter's wider base is because of a wider support for RMS, or because by internationalizing the letter in many languages, it did a better job reaching RMS supporters than the open letter did reaching RMS opposers who don't speak English.
icha 6y ago
It's good to see that there are still some sensible people working in FOSS.
cambalache 6y ago
This is a war and the public is losing. On hand is the technocracy + the established politicians and the other hand are the citizens. They want (and sadly they are being successful) to transform Internet and the software industry in general in a walled-garden, corporate-friendly,sanitized, heavily controlled world, where the things allowed to be discussed are those deemed inconsequential for the people in power and anything challenging the status-quo or even just plain marginal or weird (in any fashion that the people in power do not like) will be at best totally marginalized and at worst outright censored.Our "free world" will be a bland, we-are-all-the-same,walking-on-eggshells, boring,unoriginal dystopia.
mangecoeur 6y ago
So... pretty much vindicating the article posted a few days ago pointing out that FSF has descended into absurd paranoia where the criticism of one man's behaviour is an attack on the essence of freedom itself.
john37386 6y ago
What is the reason for flagging this post?
- iocert 6y ago
  1) There are too many pro-Stallman views here, so discussions must be censored. 2) Some people are tired of the discussions, which is sad. I think corporate influence on free software is an important topic.
spamizbad 6y ago
Give me a break. Look, if you don't want his personal conduct to factor in, let's look at the percipidous decline in free software (and the rise of copyright BSD/MIT/Apache open source software). Years ago, LLVM was offered to Stallman and the FSF. Due to the idiosyncratic way he chooses to handle his email, he never even got their message. As such: LLVM fell under a BSD-style license. Clang was built on top of it, also under a copyright license. This all culminated in giving Apple a much needed escape-hatch from GPL'd software. This is critically important, as prior to Clang/LLVM, the only open source compiler with any real mind/market share among developers was GCC. The fact that this was poorly timed, right before a sort of cambrian explosion of PLT language interests as corporate culture shifted away from only tolerating code written in C++/Java. Modern languages started getting built outside of free software and mainstreamed into industry. This is a critical setback for the movement. Stallman has stated, and I agree with this, that having a state-of-the-art compiler suite is central to the free software movement. GCC should have been that compiler, instead it's now Clang/LLVM. Between the rise of a non-free developer ecosystem (of which clang and LLVM helped state), and the mismanagement of the GPL v2/v3 switch, you now have an entire generation of software developers (and a start of a new one IMO), who basically don't give a crap about free software or the GPL - it's just that annoying restrictive open source license made by that guy.
- dmos62 6y ago
  That's interesting info, thanks for recounting that, but this letter is not about Stallman's merits as a manager, but about the arguably baseless public condemnation of his character.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  > As such: LLVM fell under a BSD-style license An extremely silly tall tale. When we released our software under GNU GPL licenses, we didn't write rms to ask for his permission or blessing. We just did release it under the license we felt was best for our vision. So if llvm was released under different license, this is fully on llvm author. They had reasons to release it under the license that fitted them best.
  - 6y ago
naruvimama 6y ago
Why is this flagged? This is an important debate. Should RMS's private or political views unrelated to the work of the FSF debar him from FSF?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tsukasagenesis 6y ago
  Exactly ! Do we need to bring moral to business or just appreciate his hard work ? I saw him in a conference in france and what I can say is this guy is the most devoted guy I ever saw on open source, semantic correctness and teaching ...
segfaultbuserr 6y ago
Five years ago, Leah Rowe published a hasty declaration on libreboot.org, announcing that, as a free software developer, she's boycotting the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation after a transgender employee she personally knew was allegedly fired due to discrimination. [0] Later Rowe apologized, said it was a mistake for several reasons, mainly for accidentally revealing the identity of that employee, eventually the declaration was retracted [1] and it seems she decided to restore cooperation (e.g. speak at LibrePlanet on Libreboot, etc), although Libreboot was no longer a GNU project. And this time Leah Rowe is the first person to publicly support the reinstatement of Richard Stallman, and now has published a declaration on libreboot.org again, this time announcing the support of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. I wonder what really has happened to her in the meantime. I'm genuinely curious about what made Rowe to change her stance. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20161207233755/https://libreboot.org/gnu/ https://web.archive.org/web/20161207233755/https://libreboot... [1] https://libreboot.org/gnu/ https://libreboot.org/gnu/
- Glavnokoman 6y ago
  I fail to see any change in her position. In both cases she openly defend the person treated unfairly in her opinion. What is inconsistent here?
  - busterarm 6y ago
    The implied tribe.
  - segfaultbuserr 6y ago
    The inconsistency here is that Leah Rowe stopped the initial boycotting campaign before that campaign was able to make any change, it was pretty clear that the original intention was to refuse cooperation unless the FSF acknowledges and solves the problem in a satisfactory manner. But it never happened, AFAIK, to this day, that ex-employee in question is still highly critical of the FSF on its alleged mishandling of the issue.
bjt2n3904 6y ago
You want to know what will cause Free Software to die? It isn't RMS. The other day I told someone I thought this whole reaction to RMS was stupid. I was instantly labeled as "one of them", and "enabling harmful behavior" and blocked. This is nothing more than a witch hunt, guilt by association, McCarthyism. Ideological conformity -- march in lockstep with me, or you're the enemy. That is what will kill free software.
- mustafa_pasi 6y ago
  That's just the activist philosophy. They believe in turning every workplace in a political battlefield and they will conspire to get all those who disagree with them, fired, and consequently take over the establishment. Managers should take note to not hire these nutjobs.
- ttt0 6y ago
  Pretty much what happened to the left with the Occupy Wallstreet movement and all, isn't it?
  - bjt2n3904 6y ago
    I think it's far closer to what happened with Rod Vagg and the Node TSC drama.
parrellel 6y ago
Damned personality cults.
splithalf 6y ago
Very strange how many posts from certain users here, like they’ve devoted a lot of themselves to the crusade against RMS. How could it be so important to these people? It seems like there’s some ulterior motive, just based on how many anti-rms posts from specific users.
smitty1e 6y ago
I'm more interested in the idea of the FSF. RMS, irrespective of your opinion of the figure, isn't young. Will Big Tech devour the concept of Free Software and reduce pretty much everyone to mere product? What good is the source code if the hardware and networks where that source code executes are reducing you do digital serfdom? Do the Silicon Valley tech godz play the Emmanuel Goldstein card on the rest of the Free Software leadership until we all just shut up and love Big Brother?
thway15269037 6y ago
Will every RMS-support topic/petition get flagged on HN? Has HN became an enabler of a witch-hunt mob?
- rubin55 6y ago
  I was thinking the same thing; I can understand that opinions might be polarized, or that for some, this is a controversial topic, but why flag any post in support of Stallman? Are posts critical of Stallman also flagged?
tln750 6y ago
I see the hatred of companies for the GPL as one of the main issues here. GCC was a thorn in the plans envisioned by companies to take advantage of FOSS. LLVM was a godsend and it allowed companies to spread the influence of their new software methodology: use the vast army of 'open source' coders as unpaid workers to enrich themselves. Free bug reporters, free testers, free code contributors. Companies can simply take and close the non-copyleft code, add some secret sauce and use it to augment their deplorable business practices like sucking up user information, like Google, or simply sell it and laugh all the way to the bank, like Nvidia. I think we are currently experiencing the old EEE tactics in various ways. Embrace Linux, use it to build an ecosystem, extinguish it with non-copyleft Fuchsia. Embrace GCC, use it to build stuff, extinguish it with non-copyleft LLVM. Android is almost completely rid of GPL code at this point - the kernel is the main piece remaining. I wonder when programmers and hackers will wake up and see how their time and work are being usurped.
zzo38computer 6y ago
Stallman isn't perfect (and I don't agree with everything; anyways, nobody is perfect, and I am also not perfect), but he said many important and good things for computer programming freedom, and should have (like anyone) the freedom of speech. They make many good points. I agree "per/perse" isn't transphobic. However, what unfortunately many people think, "they" should not be used singular because it is plural. Actually, "you" is also plural, and a lot of people use it singular. Singular "they" is actually very old, it is nothing new. (Both words are grammatically plural, even if the meaning is singular, though. People have been confused about this too, and wrote "they is", even though it is supposed to be "they are", because it is grammatically plural. Actually, the same is true fo "you is" in the past; people argued about that too.) It is true that sometimes "they" is unclear, but that is also sometimes the case of "you" and other words, too. (However, also sometimes you do not want to distinguish plural/singular even if you have to do.) Some people will always accuse the people of things in order to discredit them. These accusations are not always valid; that is why they will need an investigation (and in this case, they did write the investigation, as can be seen).
akagusu 6y ago
Usually people whom point that is a conspiracy against Free/Libre Software are dismissed as lunatics or fanatics. Because all FUD spread over the years by big corps like Microsoft and Google, developers are so anti-GNU and so anti-GPL that they firmly believe in nonsenses like GPL being a restrictive license so you should use MIT or another permissive license for your code so big corps can adopt it. Another nonsense is Free/Libre Software and Open Source Software are the same thing, but they aren't. A permissive license like MIT allow companies to take your code and make it their code and then companies make millions with your code sharing nothing/zero/nada with you. Funding Open Source developers are a big problem the community struggle with and it is by design. GPL, on the other hand, doesn't allow companies to take over your code. If they want your code in their products because your code is valuable they need to pay you, the developer, or share the code with the community so everybody can monetize the code. The big problem is that companies don't want to pay for what they use. And it is not only in the tech industry, it is everywhere. Companies want you paying them for stuff you use from them, but they don't want to pay you for the stuff they use from you. As someone already wrote here, Open Source is just free labor for big companies to make them money. It's time to stop being stupid. This attack on RMS as a person and all his flaws are bullshit. Everybody knows that the Tech Industry are full of people worse than RMS. Tech industry are full of CEOs, CFOs, CTOs, COOs, manager, <put your role here> that are sexists, racists, transphobics, misogynists and <put your word here> and yet there is no public campaign to remove them from their roles. The same companies that are promoting this campaign against RMS are the companies that don't hire women or black, asian, latin, trans people for leadership and executive roles and yet, no public campaign. Why? Everybody seems to have some shit to say about RMS but not about these companies? Do they pay your salary so they are allowed to screw everybody without your criticism? Why moral, ethics, social justice are applied to some but not to all? This campaign has one goal, to use RMS flaws to cancel RMS and censor him. Am I saying he is perfect? No. Am I saying he is good? No, because I don't know him. I don't know if he is a good or a bad person, if he deserves his position as a leader in Free/Libre Software community, I don't know if he did something bad or outlaw. If he did, he should pay. But this is not an excuse for these companies that do not like him and are ideologically opposed to him to try silence him with this cancel culture.
- baybal2 6y ago
rambojazz 6y ago
I don't take her seriously anymore, anyway. Yesterday it was "war on the FSF/RMS", today it's "defend FSF/RMS". Tomorrow? Guess it depends if she has a good day or a bad day.

223 points by arrizalamin 6y ago

Software that removes the freedoms of its users is a moral injustice and the FSF has always fought against such injustice. I don’t see how capitulating to lies to satisfy a witch hunt based on slander, and thereby perpetuate an injustice, would help strengthen FSF’s commitment to fighting against the injustice of proprietary software. If all it takes for the FSF to stand by injustice is a misinformation campaign and sufficient bad PR, then what happens when proprietary companies start applying the same tactics to free software? will the FSF step back again, to avoid accruing too much bad PR? Sometimes in life it is difficult to make the right decision, but we must do it nonetheless.

rbanffy 6y ago
I wouldn't call it slander. - Stallman is a divisive figure, with questionable opinions outside the realm of free software, opinions he published himself, willingly. - He multiple times ignored the contributions of women, and did so after being corrected. - Lots of women feel uncomfortable close to him due to his behavior. Some of that may be involuntary. - The board reinstated him without an announcement, prior discussion involving the broader community. The announcement surprised everyone except the board and the host event had do clarify they were not part of it. - He refuses to acknowledge how all these things damage the reputation of the FSF. All this could be avoided by doing absolutely nothing. He resigned, after all.
- gopiandcode 6y ago
  Have you read the open letter? The points you list above are a lot more milquetoast than the "evidence" against RMS that was posted on the open letter - it performs such disingenuous actions as quoting statements that RMS has since retracted or changed, refusing to admit the fact that he has changed; mischaracterising his suggestion of alternative pronouns as a transphobic attack when in fact RMS has stated that he himself will respect people's personal pronouns; underplaying the vicious media attack that was launched against him. While the claims you make in your comment might not be slander, the open letter is much less nuanced, and strays a lot closer to that line.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    The point remains the FSF board would have better executed its mission of protecting the FSF by doing absolutely nothing. There was no desperate need to reinstate Stallman. Have they failed to produce any other leaders inside the organization that could take it and move it forward? Isn't there anyone else who could lead it? Stallman won't be able to front it forever and he already conveniently stepped aside. He's still the founder of the movement, and that he'll always be, but the noise he created for no good reason makes it clear he's unfit to lead this movement.
    - yesenadam 6y ago
      Every word of that seems right to me, but – You don't seem to care if the anti-RMS petition was slander or not. Whether it was all true or all false. The person who wrote it also seems not to care. Why not?! I read it and looked into its claims, and was very surprised that none of them seemed to actually be true. The people who signed it presumably took its truth on faith, like you seem to be doing. Either that or you and they don't care. Imagine for a second it was you being slandered in such a way. After totally transforming your field for the better, around the world!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rzwitserloot 6y ago

From the linked article: > Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software > Our opponent’s true target is not Richard Stallman; their real aim is to destroy the FSF by thoroughly infiltrating it (like they already have with organisations like the OSI and Linux Foundation). These people even started an online petition calling for RMS’s forceful removal and for the entire board of directors at the FSF to resign from their posts. So, you're either forced to defend Richard Stallman and accept what's going on over there, or __YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF ALL OPEN SOURCE__. What a load of trash.

aokiji 6y ago
How much are you getting paid for this astro-turfing? Is it the CIA?
flyinglizard 6y ago
The way the ideology behind free software is intertwined and inspired by free speech, one feeds from the other.
- throwaways885 6y ago
  Yup! You cannot have the FSF without free speech. Creating petitions to excommunicate RMS & other supporters just does not jive with the organisation's founding principles. I'm not going to defend Stallman's comments - they are extremely dubious at best - but I do not agree with trying to bully him out of the movement he helped build. If he really is problematic, you can just 'fork' off and create your own FSF equivalent.
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    Free speech never implied freedom from consequences though - this isn't the government suppressing RMS, it's people reacting to his free speech and deciding that they don't like it. That's how it works.
    - lelanthran 6y ago

infinityplus1 6y ago

How about just ask the guy directly? What are his current views?

sdevonoes 6y ago
Wondering why this got downvoted. It makes sense.
sgt 6y ago
I don't think contacting rms is as straight forward as you would think.
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  I usually do it by chanting "XEmacs" three times while looking into a mirror.
- Y_Y 6y ago
  It couldn't be easier. His email is rms@gnu.org and afaik he is very good for replying.
  - tomcooks 6y ago
    Can confirm. He even replied to me when, as a noob kid, asked him whether I should choose vi or emacs as my editor.
    - bombcar 6y ago
      Which did he say?
      - tomcooks 6y ago
        Trying to remember (a very long time passed), he was very kind and patiently told me that it's important to use the tool that works best for you. He added that for obvious reasons he uses emacs. A proper saint.

approxim8ion 6y ago

Complete hogwash, but whatever. Stallman defenders would do well to not overstate his and the FSF's present (not historical) importance to the software community in addition to understating his views and the things he did.

aokiji 6y ago
Nice arguments you provided. Are you part of the Marxist subversion web that is trying to shove "Code of Conduct" political witch-hunt tools into the software world? Trying to follow Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch's vision of controlling every aspect of human life?
basilgohar 6y ago
Say what you will about the man personally, but his prescience with regards to the trends of industry and its attacks on personal freedom with regards to software and hardware have been very accurate, oftentimes decades ahead of when the effects are widely understood. His disconnection from average people can sometimes be explained because of how differently he thinks about things – usually in an absolutist sense, which is very alienating. But his contributions to the software community, even if not directly through software commits, but through advocacy and ensuring the fundamental freedoms are preserved, are still being reaped to this day. The same thing goes for the FSF, which, having been founded by him, has a similar worldview. It may not be pragmatic towards startups that want to profit from artificial digital scarcity, but those same startups and other businesses have profited immeasurable through FSF's defense of software freedoms. Would the world really be better off if the Microsofts, Oracles, and others of their ilk still had the same grasp on the user experience of software? Neither Android, AWS, nor countless other staples of billions of peoples' lives and livelihoods would be a thing if not for the early and ongoing defense of software freedom that the FSF has provided.
ByTheBook 6y ago
What exactly did he do ? From what I've gathered he gave out cards which was basically an invitation to a date with him should anyone be interested, and he made a very ill-concieved statement regarding harm from children having sex with adults. A really stupid comment but hardly something that would warrant this kind of response, at least unless he doubled down on it. Is this all ?

joe45643234 6y ago

Finally organizations showing their support. Although the number of individuals who defend RMS is already more than twice the people who are anti-RMS and still growing, its nice to see organizations joining to defend RMS.

EdwardDiego 6y ago
Where are you maintaining this score, out of curiosity?
- icha 6y ago
  There is a support letter hosted on github: https://rms-support-letter.github.io/ https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
  - cbm-vic-20 6y ago
    Hosted on GitHub, a business (now a division of Microsoft) whose core is centered around the "Tivoization" of a GPL-licensed program. Ironic.
- lelanthran 6y ago
  It's in the linked letters of support FTFA. There is less support for firing RMS than there is for keeping him, even though the people signing the "keep" are face negative consequences or supporting the FSF's goals.
  - andrewshadura 6y ago
    You mean hundreds of anonymous GitHub accounts or absolutely nobodies are risking something, as opposed to people who have proven track record of actually doing real work in the world of free software? Just wow.
    - icha 6y ago
      Oh, wow. Maybe if you actually skimmed through the list of supporters you'd find that they're real people with real jobs strongly interested in FOSS from all around the world? Or are you, perhaps, a jingoistic xenophobe for whom only American opinions matter?

antman 6y ago

Any background or events regarding the OSI and Linux infiltrations mentioned?

max1truc 6y ago

> The list that attacks Richard has Microsoft, Google, OSI, Linux Foundation, Gnome Foundation and Ethical Source people on it! These people oppose Free Software ideologically What ? The Linux Foundation ? It opposes Free Software ? Did I misunderstand this sentence ?

EdwardDiego 6y ago
Don't forget Red Hat, a company that makes it living from FOSS, apparently now also hates FOSS...
- prepend 6y ago
  There’s multiple angles. I think RedHat is more for PR for IBM. I don’t think it’s binary in that RedHat is owned by a company that has other motivations than when RedHat was independent.
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    Red Hat is still largely independent of IBM.
    - prepend 6y ago
      True, but I think there’s “cancel risk” (or whatever you call it) to IBM were RedHat to do something like sell software to ICE or whatever is an action that people boycott/campaign on. People were threatening Microsoft because of GitHub’s actions. I think it’s reasonable that a lawyer at IBM identified this area to message whatever is supposed to be right and talked with RedHat to coordinate signing or whatnot. I think it’s weird that corporations make these kinds of moral/ethical statements.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    RedHat has been on the road it's on long before the acquisition by IBM.
  - akagusu 6y ago

shadowgovt 6y ago

> Despite the name, Ethical Source licenses are in fact non-free because they put restrictions on usage of the software; if the author of such software disagrees with your political views, they can ban you from using the software. That strikes me as a weird distinction for somebody who supports copyleft to make. Is the difference that the political view that copyleft licenses support is limited to the issue of redistribution and modification of code? Edit: I follow the author's reasoning now - they're using "non-free" in the Four Fundamental Software Freedoms technical sense.

Nursie 6y ago
No, it's because it puts restrictions on use. Open source does not.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  The GPL does put restriction on use. If you make modification to the code and do not share those modifications, you are constrained from using the code you modified. And those constraints are for political reasons. The Four Freedoms are a political ideology about how software, developers, and users should morally interact, and the GPL exists as a legal tool to support this political ideology. Edit: clarification - by "use" here, I'm including "bundle it into a black box of hardware and sell that hardware."
  - lelanthran 6y ago
    > The GPL does put restriction on use. No, it does not. It places restrictions on redistribution, not on use. You can use it no matter who or what you are. > If you make modification to the code and do not share those modifications, you are constrained from using the code you modified. Incorrect. You can modify and use it to your hearts content. You are only required to share your modifications source if you distribute the modified software.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

sgt 6y ago

"Clearly, they/them is commonly understood and will cause the least amount of misunderstanding." While I support this campaign and I support RMS right to free speech, I find it ridiculous that everyone is now expected to use they/them pronouns for non-binaries etc. Am I the only one or has the world gone absolutely batshit insane, driven by purple haired Twitter trans-extremists?

mseepgood 6y ago
How else do you refer to non-binary people?
- sgt 6y ago
  He or she, depending what the person looks like. I'm not going to use they/them, the same way I'm not going to force someone else to refer to me as "my lord".
  - prepend 6y ago
    Comically I was registering for an event and they required a prefix with choices “Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, My lord” and like a hundred other prefixes for fancy people. I was surprised that there wasn’t a non-gendered prefix to call someone by unless they have some prefix due to training or station. “Honorable” and “Dr” have requirements before use.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mx_(title) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mx_(title)
  - no-s 6y ago
    > He or she, depending what the person looks like. Well, that may be perceived as insulting by the addressee, and they might have a point. The previous consensus was not to presume offense. Too bad we can't all efficiently communicate in a polite language free from irrelevant embedded idiosyncratic perceptual distinctions, so as to avoid giving and taking offense. Yet for some reason we are required instead to recognize new distinctive pronouns and use them consistently or face ostracism. A forced consensus is a false consensus. > the same way I'm not going to force someone else to refer to me as "my lord". And there's a good point. Forcing others to use a form of arbitrarily self-determined address and banding together to ostracize and punish the uncooperative is uncomfortably similar to just plain old elitist bullying. I understand the thesis is to show respect for the addressee, but insisting and threatening is to transform it into a transaction of dominance and submission. Some argue that to respond by identifying as a surface-to-air missile is just a glib insult, not satirical criticism of the implied superiority expressed as reductio ad absurdum.

EdwardDiego 6y ago

RMS is a grown-up, he talked his way into this mess, he can talk his way out. Might involve compromise though, so good luck with that. But seriously, it's on him to fix this. If he doesn't believe he needs to, then well, he can go sit with Brendan Eich in the "intelligent, but unwise" corner.

caslon 6y ago
Comparing Stallman to Eich is a bit weird, isn't it? Stallman hasn't actually done anything harmful; he's just terrible socially.
- robert_foss 6y ago
  I'm a bit unfamiliar with Eich, what has he done?
  - caslon 6y ago
    He funded a group trying to prevent homosexuals from having equal rights with everyone else. Regardless of your ethical views on the subject of homosexuals, it's wrong to try and prevent anyone from having freedom, especially in such an undemocratic way as throwing money at it.
    - Glavnokoman 6y ago
      That is pretty sick description of what happened. To be precise he donated 1000$ to some org which opposes the gay marriage.
      - caslon 6y ago
        I described it completely accurately.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

happytoexplain 6y ago

The writeup begins, "known Thought Criminal Richard M Stallman was falsely accused". So, it immediately implies, using sarcasm, that there is not another potentially valid opinion on this topic, and makes sure anybody with another opinion feels antagonized. I'm not defending any articles with an opposite position - I'm just criticizing this writeup.

md_ 6y ago
I honestly thought this blog post was parody, until I realized it was way too long to be anything but genuine. Sigh.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Latty 6y ago

Any article that just dismisses the issues with Stallman as a smear and tells you not to listen to them without showing why they are wrong instantly seems to have little intent to engage on the facts. This reads like an absurd conspiracy theory. Stallman had some good ideas about software, it doesn't mean he doesn't have bad ideas about other things (like consent), and if so we should continue to pursue the good ideas and throw out the bad. No individual is FOSS software, and equating the two is foolish at best.

jstanley 6y ago
> it doesn't mean he doesn't have bad ideas about other things (like consent) But does he have bad ideas about things like consent?
- Latty 6y ago
  Well, my point was that this article actively avoids answering that question. From what I can see, yes, he does. He seems to take the position that children should be able consent to sex with adults, which fundamentally makes contributors less safe, and in my opinion is worthy of removing him from positions of leadership. His comments (from https://web.archive.org/web/20210325013844/https://stallman.org/archives/2017-sep-dec.html#13_November_2017_(Jelani_Maraj) https://web.archive.org/web/20210325013844/https://stallman.... ): > Due to the vagueness of the term "sexual assault" together with the dishonest law that labels sex with adolescents as "rape" even if they are willing, we cannot tell from this article what sort of acts Maraj was found to have committed. So we can't begin to judge whether those acts were wrong. > I see at least three possibilities. Perhaps those acts really constituted rape — it is a possibility. Or perhaps the two had sex willingly, but her parents freaked out and demanded prosecution. Or, intermediate between those two, perhaps he pressured her into having sex, or got her drunk. It is fundamentally dangerous to offer abusers the opportunity to claim it was all willing, which is why the law makes it always rape. If you choose to break that law, that's on you and you deserve to be treated as an abuser. This position of regarding the ability to sleep with under-aged people as more important than defending under-aged people from abusers is one incompatible with keeping a community safe, in my opinion.

EdwardDiego 6y ago

Hate to say it, but sorta reads like the Unabomber manifesto, just angrier, and less pedantically correct usage if idioms.

TravelPiglet 6y ago

Was this inspired by Trump :) Sound more of an attempt to discredit the rest of the open source community for not being "pure" enough.

Sporktacular 6y ago

/Blah

SiempreViernes 6y ago

Top ranked on the classic frontpage, but not the main one. I guess this is one of those generational issues?

hntrader 6y ago
How do you view the classic front-page?
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  just put /classic at the end of the base url.

resonanttoe 6y ago

Curious timing for libreboot/Leah. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26638037 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26638037

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

So one thing I'm noting here is that this letter has a heavy translation/international bent. Additionally, an extremely large portion of signers have Russian-language names, for example. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I have ever talked to or worked with in FOSS software has signed the "opposes RMS" letter, and I can't find anyone I recall or have even heard of on this one. But of course, I mostly have worked with people in the English-speaking world. Does this sort of suggest language or culture is where the divide on this issue might stand?

efficax 6y ago
The author, Leah Rowe, is English as far as I know
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  I was not, by any means, suggesting nobody who supports RMS is from any given country, merely that internationalization efforts on the support letter may have given it a larger reach, or possibly reflect cultural views not reflected by the open letter.
bm3719 6y ago
Slavic languages, and correspondingly their names, are common in dozens of countries besides Russia. You probably have a sizable minority of them in your own country. The support letter is indeed more international and representative of the larger development community. I'd say this reflects well on rms, since he obviously has a wider support base. His opponents seem to represent a specific subculture that only exists in the West. If you're only surrounded by these types, then you might be the one in a bubble.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  "Slavic" was the word I was looking for, thank you. I am definitely aware such names are common in a wide geographic area. I do think there may be an untested theory on whether the support letter's wider base is because of a wider support for RMS, or because by internationalizing the letter in many languages, it did a better job reaching RMS supporters than the open letter did reaching RMS opposers who don't speak English.

icha 6y ago

It's good to see that there are still some sensible people working in FOSS.

cambalache 6y ago

This is a war and the public is losing. On hand is the technocracy + the established politicians and the other hand are the citizens. They want (and sadly they are being successful) to transform Internet and the software industry in general in a walled-garden, corporate-friendly,sanitized, heavily controlled world, where the things allowed to be discussed are those deemed inconsequential for the people in power and anything challenging the status-quo or even just plain marginal or weird (in any fashion that the people in power do not like) will be at best totally marginalized and at worst outright censored.Our "free world" will be a bland, we-are-all-the-same,walking-on-eggshells, boring,unoriginal dystopia.

mangecoeur 6y ago

So... pretty much vindicating the article posted a few days ago pointing out that FSF has descended into absurd paranoia where the criticism of one man's behaviour is an attack on the essence of freedom itself.

john37386 6y ago

What is the reason for flagging this post?

iocert 6y ago
1) There are too many pro-Stallman views here, so discussions must be censored. 2) Some people are tired of the discussions, which is sad. I think corporate influence on free software is an important topic.

spamizbad 6y ago

Give me a break. Look, if you don't want his personal conduct to factor in, let's look at the percipidous decline in free software (and the rise of copyright BSD/MIT/Apache open source software). Years ago, LLVM was offered to Stallman and the FSF. Due to the idiosyncratic way he chooses to handle his email, he never even got their message. As such: LLVM fell under a BSD-style license. Clang was built on top of it, also under a copyright license. This all culminated in giving Apple a much needed escape-hatch from GPL'd software. This is critically important, as prior to Clang/LLVM, the only open source compiler with any real mind/market share among developers was GCC. The fact that this was poorly timed, right before a sort of cambrian explosion of PLT language interests as corporate culture shifted away from only tolerating code written in C++/Java. Modern languages started getting built outside of free software and mainstreamed into industry. This is a critical setback for the movement. Stallman has stated, and I agree with this, that having a state-of-the-art compiler suite is central to the free software movement. GCC should have been that compiler, instead it's now Clang/LLVM. Between the rise of a non-free developer ecosystem (of which clang and LLVM helped state), and the mismanagement of the GPL v2/v3 switch, you now have an entire generation of software developers (and a start of a new one IMO), who basically don't give a crap about free software or the GPL - it's just that annoying restrictive open source license made by that guy.

dmos62 6y ago
That's interesting info, thanks for recounting that, but this letter is not about Stallman's merits as a manager, but about the arguably baseless public condemnation of his character.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
> As such: LLVM fell under a BSD-style license An extremely silly tall tale. When we released our software under GNU GPL licenses, we didn't write rms to ask for his permission or blessing. We just did release it under the license we felt was best for our vision. So if llvm was released under different license, this is fully on llvm author. They had reasons to release it under the license that fitted them best.
- 6y ago

naruvimama 6y ago

Why is this flagged? This is an important debate. Should RMS's private or political views unrelated to the work of the FSF debar him from FSF?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tsukasagenesis 6y ago
Exactly ! Do we need to bring moral to business or just appreciate his hard work ? I saw him in a conference in france and what I can say is this guy is the most devoted guy I ever saw on open source, semantic correctness and teaching ...

segfaultbuserr 6y ago

Five years ago, Leah Rowe published a hasty declaration on libreboot.org, announcing that, as a free software developer, she's boycotting the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation after a transgender employee she personally knew was allegedly fired due to discrimination. [0] Later Rowe apologized, said it was a mistake for several reasons, mainly for accidentally revealing the identity of that employee, eventually the declaration was retracted [1] and it seems she decided to restore cooperation (e.g. speak at LibrePlanet on Libreboot, etc), although Libreboot was no longer a GNU project. And this time Leah Rowe is the first person to publicly support the reinstatement of Richard Stallman, and now has published a declaration on libreboot.org again, this time announcing the support of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. I wonder what really has happened to her in the meantime. I'm genuinely curious about what made Rowe to change her stance. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20161207233755/https://libreboot.org/gnu/ https://web.archive.org/web/20161207233755/https://libreboot... [1] https://libreboot.org/gnu/ https://libreboot.org/gnu/

Glavnokoman 6y ago
I fail to see any change in her position. In both cases she openly defend the person treated unfairly in her opinion. What is inconsistent here?
- busterarm 6y ago
  The implied tribe.
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  The inconsistency here is that Leah Rowe stopped the initial boycotting campaign before that campaign was able to make any change, it was pretty clear that the original intention was to refuse cooperation unless the FSF acknowledges and solves the problem in a satisfactory manner. But it never happened, AFAIK, to this day, that ex-employee in question is still highly critical of the FSF on its alleged mishandling of the issue.

bjt2n3904 6y ago

You want to know what will cause Free Software to die? It isn't RMS. The other day I told someone I thought this whole reaction to RMS was stupid. I was instantly labeled as "one of them", and "enabling harmful behavior" and blocked. This is nothing more than a witch hunt, guilt by association, McCarthyism. Ideological conformity -- march in lockstep with me, or you're the enemy. That is what will kill free software.

mustafa_pasi 6y ago
That's just the activist philosophy. They believe in turning every workplace in a political battlefield and they will conspire to get all those who disagree with them, fired, and consequently take over the establishment. Managers should take note to not hire these nutjobs.
ttt0 6y ago
Pretty much what happened to the left with the Occupy Wallstreet movement and all, isn't it?
- bjt2n3904 6y ago
  I think it's far closer to what happened with Rod Vagg and the Node TSC drama.

parrellel 6y ago

Damned personality cults.

splithalf 6y ago

Very strange how many posts from certain users here, like they’ve devoted a lot of themselves to the crusade against RMS. How could it be so important to these people? It seems like there’s some ulterior motive, just based on how many anti-rms posts from specific users.

smitty1e 6y ago

I'm more interested in the idea of the FSF. RMS, irrespective of your opinion of the figure, isn't young. Will Big Tech devour the concept of Free Software and reduce pretty much everyone to mere product? What good is the source code if the hardware and networks where that source code executes are reducing you do digital serfdom? Do the Silicon Valley tech godz play the Emmanuel Goldstein card on the rest of the Free Software leadership until we all just shut up and love Big Brother?

thway15269037 6y ago

Will every RMS-support topic/petition get flagged on HN? Has HN became an enabler of a witch-hunt mob?

rubin55 6y ago
I was thinking the same thing; I can understand that opinions might be polarized, or that for some, this is a controversial topic, but why flag any post in support of Stallman? Are posts critical of Stallman also flagged?

tln750 6y ago

I see the hatred of companies for the GPL as one of the main issues here. GCC was a thorn in the plans envisioned by companies to take advantage of FOSS. LLVM was a godsend and it allowed companies to spread the influence of their new software methodology: use the vast army of 'open source' coders as unpaid workers to enrich themselves. Free bug reporters, free testers, free code contributors. Companies can simply take and close the non-copyleft code, add some secret sauce and use it to augment their deplorable business practices like sucking up user information, like Google, or simply sell it and laugh all the way to the bank, like Nvidia. I think we are currently experiencing the old EEE tactics in various ways. Embrace Linux, use it to build an ecosystem, extinguish it with non-copyleft Fuchsia. Embrace GCC, use it to build stuff, extinguish it with non-copyleft LLVM. Android is almost completely rid of GPL code at this point - the kernel is the main piece remaining. I wonder when programmers and hackers will wake up and see how their time and work are being usurped.

zzo38computer 6y ago

Stallman isn't perfect (and I don't agree with everything; anyways, nobody is perfect, and I am also not perfect), but he said many important and good things for computer programming freedom, and should have (like anyone) the freedom of speech. They make many good points. I agree "per/perse" isn't transphobic. However, what unfortunately many people think, "they" should not be used singular because it is plural. Actually, "you" is also plural, and a lot of people use it singular. Singular "they" is actually very old, it is nothing new. (Both words are grammatically plural, even if the meaning is singular, though. People have been confused about this too, and wrote "they is", even though it is supposed to be "they are", because it is grammatically plural. Actually, the same is true fo "you is" in the past; people argued about that too.) It is true that sometimes "they" is unclear, but that is also sometimes the case of "you" and other words, too. (However, also sometimes you do not want to distinguish plural/singular even if you have to do.) Some people will always accuse the people of things in order to discredit them. These accusations are not always valid; that is why they will need an investigation (and in this case, they did write the investigation, as can be seen).

akagusu 6y ago

Usually people whom point that is a conspiracy against Free/Libre Software are dismissed as lunatics or fanatics. Because all FUD spread over the years by big corps like Microsoft and Google, developers are so anti-GNU and so anti-GPL that they firmly believe in nonsenses like GPL being a restrictive license so you should use MIT or another permissive license for your code so big corps can adopt it. Another nonsense is Free/Libre Software and Open Source Software are the same thing, but they aren't. A permissive license like MIT allow companies to take your code and make it their code and then companies make millions with your code sharing nothing/zero/nada with you. Funding Open Source developers are a big problem the community struggle with and it is by design. GPL, on the other hand, doesn't allow companies to take over your code. If they want your code in their products because your code is valuable they need to pay you, the developer, or share the code with the community so everybody can monetize the code. The big problem is that companies don't want to pay for what they use. And it is not only in the tech industry, it is everywhere. Companies want you paying them for stuff you use from them, but they don't want to pay you for the stuff they use from you. As someone already wrote here, Open Source is just free labor for big companies to make them money. It's time to stop being stupid. This attack on RMS as a person and all his flaws are bullshit. Everybody knows that the Tech Industry are full of people worse than RMS. Tech industry are full of CEOs, CFOs, CTOs, COOs, manager, <put your role here> that are sexists, racists, transphobics, misogynists and <put your word here> and yet there is no public campaign to remove them from their roles. The same companies that are promoting this campaign against RMS are the companies that don't hire women or black, asian, latin, trans people for leadership and executive roles and yet, no public campaign. Why? Everybody seems to have some shit to say about RMS but not about these companies? Do they pay your salary so they are allowed to screw everybody without your criticism? Why moral, ethics, social justice are applied to some but not to all? This campaign has one goal, to use RMS flaws to cancel RMS and censor him. Am I saying he is perfect? No. Am I saying he is good? No, because I don't know him. I don't know if he is a good or a bad person, if he deserves his position as a leader in Free/Libre Software community, I don't know if he did something bad or outlaw. If he did, he should pay. But this is not an excuse for these companies that do not like him and are ideologically opposed to him to try silence him with this cancel culture.

baybal2 6y ago

rambojazz 6y ago

I don't take her seriously anymore, anyway. Yesterday it was "war on the FSF/RMS", today it's "defend FSF/RMS". Tomorrow? Guess it depends if she has a good day or a bad day.