8 ms·

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

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
      > 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. Good point - looking at the petitions, it's become obvious that the people deciding they don't like RMS's speeach are in the minority. Is it worth firing an entire board because a minority feels insecure? On your mind, is tyranny by the minority better than tyranny by the majority?
      - EdwardDiego 6y ago
        ...just because it's a minority doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. At the risk of the ghost of Godwin's, black people were a minority in the 1960s, yet still had a good point about their aims. And as for whether or not the board chooses to listen to the feedback, entirely up to them and their governance structure.
        dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
        > ...just because it's a minority doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. In this case, at least one of the main points is inherently wrong, because it's based on a lie repeated in some media outlets that Stallman was defending Epstein. But when you actually read his email, you realize it was the opposite.
        lelanthran 6y ago
        > ...just because it's a minority doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. At the risk of the ghost of Godwin's, black people were a minority in the 1960s, yet still had a good point about their aims. Another good point: if the cancel-culture we are currently suffering under now was practiced in the 60s, black people, women, minorities, etc would never had gotten equal rights. It's because everyone was allowed to speak that the message came across and won minds. The fact that people are asking for the silencing of their opponents is a good indicator that their arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. Like it or not, RMS does scrutinise the status quo. Petitioning for exemption from critics makes it hard to support those people doing the petitioning.
- Latty 6y ago
  If people can't contribute because they are being preyed upon and abused in the community, and the leadership sees no issue with that, they can't contribute and so they are excluded. If he isn't willing to defend those people, it isn't about his free speech, it is about his inability to do the job and willingness to let others be silenced.
lelanthran 6y ago
> 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__. Where did they say that, or anything that implies that?
- bfgoodrich 6y ago
  You must be functionally retarded if you can't find multiple poorly written sentences that distill down to what the GP stated.
- Scarblac 6y ago
  > "Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software" Surely if you're OK with that, that heavily implies you are an enemy of open source? I think it's quite a reasonable rephrasing.
  - vitno 6y ago
    Free Software is not open source and the article points that out as well. I'm not convinced they want to destroy Free Software either however.
- DetroitThrow 6y ago
  "Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software" in massive text without highlighting any of the legitimate, less presumptive grievances with Stallman's behavior seems to be a 1:1 drop in. Or are you concerned about their usage of open source in place of free software? They quite plainly state principles which are also shared with the open source movement are what they're defending, even not accounting for their colloquial synonyminity.
  - lelanthran 6y ago
    > "Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software" Does not in any way imply that people not defending RMS wish to destroy Free Software. > 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__. This quote does, and is mischaracterising the position of the linked article.
gopiandcode 6y ago
> 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__. Firstly Free software != open source, so you probably meant free software in your original quote. Secondly, while there may be people who have legitimate concerns about RMS, the authors of the open letter have chosen not to highlight these claims but rather to rely on mischaracterisations and easily debunked lies. By supporting the open letter you are supporting these lies and thereby supporting an attack on free software. Maybe this is not the most productive characterisation of the situation, but the creators of the open letter were the ones that chose this framing by choosing to propagate such falsehoods. We must stand up against such disingenuous actions, and can view them as none other than some kind of motivated attack on Free software.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tomcooks 6y ago
If you think Stallman stands for open source you don't understand free software, open source, nor Stallman.
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  Please, elaborate. What do all of those actually mean?
  - tomcooks 6y ago
    I suggest going to gnu.org and stallman.org, and if you have questions write to the emails you find in the contact section of those respective sites
- RichardCA 6y ago
  I prefer to think of it as the political style you find in European countries with the parliamentary system. You have to form coalitions. The "pure" FSF position is like an ideological pole that some people are closer to than others. When this system functions properly, there is more room for nuance and shades of grey. Of course the danger is that we end up like Israel. They keep re-electing the same guy who is incapable of forming anything, but no one knows who the successor would be or even how such a person would operate in the current climate.
- BTCOG 6y ago
  All that Stallman stands for is freedom and open source software. Take that nonsense disinformation of yours elsewhere.
caslon 6y ago
I mean, the OSI is filled with people who work for proprietary companies, and open source was made to make free software enterprise. And the Linux Foundation has a bunch of people from companies that also promote largely proprietary technologies... So...yeah. The FSF is the last beacon of morality here, in its own strange, beady-eyed way. I'm not a huge fan of Stallman, myself (I have had many arguments with him), but the people opposing him are pretty awful people largely pushing proprietary software, actually.
- geofft 6y ago
  > I mean, the OSI is filled with people who work for proprietary companies So is GNU, though. For instance, https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html identifies the affiliations of most of the GCC steering committee, and they're generally proprietary companies. (Several work for Red Hat, a subsidiary of IBM.) Also, if we're going to claim that working for a proprietary-software company means you're not a member of the free software movement, the movement is very small indeed. > and open source was made to make free software enterprise. That may be the case, but the FSF has a long history of saying that you can work on free software for profit, too. Frankly, that's why the FSF exists separate from the GNU project - to be a place that you can order physical media with GNU software from and expense it. > but the people opposing him are pretty awful people largely pushing proprietary software, actually This is untrue of the authors of the open letter - you should look at their stated positions on free and proprietary software. (It might be true of some of the signatories, of course.)
  - caslon 6y ago
    > So is GNU, though. For instance, https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html identifies the affiliations of most of the GCC steering committee, and they're generally proprietary companies. (Several work for Red Hat, a subsidiary of IBM.) Red Hat releases most things under free licenses and as far as I know everyone on the GCC steering committee from Red Hat was there pre-acquisition. That said, I don't love the GCC steering committee for many reasons (many of which admittedly were before most of their appointments). You are right, though, that much of the steering committee for GCC isn't pro-freedom as much as it is pro-convenience (and in the case of SiFive, is a very proprietary company). ...also, the GCC steering committee isn't representative of all of GNU. > Also, if we're going to claim that working for a proprietary-software company means you're not a member of the free software movement, the movement is very small indeed. This is true! I wouldn't say working for one excludes you (though it kind of does), but I would say working for one is incompatible with leading the free software movement or having moral ground to coup it. > That may be the case, but the FSF has a long history of saying that you can work on free software for profit, too. You can! It really is wonderful. Nothing I said conflicts, there. > Frankly, that's why the FSF exists separate from the GNU project - to be a place that you can order physical media with GNU software from and expense it. Half-truth, but close enough. Again, this doesn't conflict with anything I said. > This is untrue of the authors of the open letter - you should look at their stated positions on free and proprietary software. (It might be true of some of the signatories, of course.) That isn't actually true for all of the authors; one I can recall offhand, Garrett works for a company making proprietary software of the worst kind: the type that can kill people. And that's on top of a long history of opinions far more controversial than anything Stallman has been accused of, let alone done (the guy mocked a man who the UN has admitted was being tortured, for example).
rbanffy 6y ago
> 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 By reinstating Stallman the board created this controversy and deliberately sabotaged the FSF's mission of defending Free Software. It's ludicrous to imagine they didn't know what the consequences would be.
- DetroitThrow 6y ago
  Yeah, just now reading the individuals in the petition list, so many are contributors of GPL projects. If the goal was to defend or strengthen the free software movement, then turning every conversation about the subject into a purity test on the founder's actions instead of on, well, free software seems to run counter to that goal. And given the return announcement happened at the end of Libre planet without any of their organizers being aware beforehand, which FSF clarified as such afterwards, it telegraphs their awareness that it would be a controversy.
iocert 6y ago
You are not forced to defend him, in fact Leah calls some of Stallman's statements "idiotic" herself. But she is intellectually mature enough to see that most humans have had 5 stupid views over 30 years, and Stallman was just honest enough to write them down. You don't need to defend the views (some of which have already been retracted), but you have to accept Stallman as flawed human being. Stallman is currently still the only candidate who is uncompromising enough to drag the technological Overton Window in a good direction. So I don't think the article is trash at all, it is a refreshing, honest, bold take on the current elephant in the room: Corporate influence on free software. Such people inspire me to write free software.
- Nursie 6y ago
  > You don't need to defend the views (some of which have already been retracted), but you have to accept Stallman as flawed human being. This (the holding on to his views of 15 years ago, which he has since come to understand are wrong) is a major issue in the modern world IMHO. That's not to defend Stallman's more recent gaffes, or even those older ones. But it raises a question - we know people can learn, grow and change. At what point does society start to accept that something said online in the past is no longer representative of the living person? Because if it's "never", we appear to be gearing up for a future where politicians can only be people who have never set a single rhetorical foot wrong, and have been on-message since the day they came of age. And that scares me because such people are probably psychopaths or puritans.
  - kodah 6y ago
    > But it raises a question - we know people can learn, grow and change I think we are starting to learn this. I believe this at my core because I've observed myself and others, but when I feel some type of way it's not always the first idea in my mind.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    I hope I never become famous, because someone will surely trawl through my 25 year old USENET posts and probably find something to hang me with. Probably something that was benign and harmless back in the 90’s but now offensive. I wonder what future discussion-archaeologists will find 25 years from now in our HN posts that by 2046 becomes offensive!
dang 6y ago
Your comment breaks several of the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing them and sticking to the rules? This is exactly the kind of thing they ask you not to post here. Everyone needs to follow the rules regardless of: (1) how right they are; (2) how right they feel they are; (3) how wrong someone is; (4) how wrong they feel someone is; and/or (5) how provocative something was. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
pankajdoharey 6y ago
People are multi faceted and the world is gray. One cannot undermine ones contributions to computer science for the sake of PC culture or aggreing to the popular opinion. People voted for trump should we hate those people or just disagree with their views? Popular opinion isnt the arbitor of truth!
ikerdanzel 6y ago
I know a lot of people that defend RMS and fully agreed with OP. I know a lot of people who don't care that much. As for your final conclusion that "if not you're enemy" I don't fully agreed with. You can be indifferent too. Not a single person that dislike RMS I know of can prove that he committed a crime. The dislikes are purely based on opinionated statements which is part and parcel of free speech. Showed me he committed something bad rather than "oh my feeling hurt because he said something not nice so he must be purged". I classified these kind of outraged people as snowflakes. Yeah, what a load of trash flakes.

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
    > 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. Good point - looking at the petitions, it's become obvious that the people deciding they don't like RMS's speeach are in the minority. Is it worth firing an entire board because a minority feels insecure? On your mind, is tyranny by the minority better than tyranny by the majority?
    - EdwardDiego 6y ago
      ...just because it's a minority doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. At the risk of the ghost of Godwin's, black people were a minority in the 1960s, yet still had a good point about their aims. And as for whether or not the board chooses to listen to the feedback, entirely up to them and their governance structure.
      - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
        > ...just because it's a minority doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. In this case, at least one of the main points is inherently wrong, because it's based on a lie repeated in some media outlets that Stallman was defending Epstein. But when you actually read his email, you realize it was the opposite.
      - lelanthran 6y ago
        > ...just because it's a minority doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. At the risk of the ghost of Godwin's, black people were a minority in the 1960s, yet still had a good point about their aims. Another good point: if the cancel-culture we are currently suffering under now was practiced in the 60s, black people, women, minorities, etc would never had gotten equal rights. It's because everyone was allowed to speak that the message came across and won minds. The fact that people are asking for the silencing of their opponents is a good indicator that their arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. Like it or not, RMS does scrutinise the status quo. Petitioning for exemption from critics makes it hard to support those people doing the petitioning.
Latty 6y ago
If people can't contribute because they are being preyed upon and abused in the community, and the leadership sees no issue with that, they can't contribute and so they are excluded. If he isn't willing to defend those people, it isn't about his free speech, it is about his inability to do the job and willingness to let others be silenced.

lelanthran 6y ago

> 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__. Where did they say that, or anything that implies that?

bfgoodrich 6y ago
You must be functionally retarded if you can't find multiple poorly written sentences that distill down to what the GP stated.
Scarblac 6y ago
> "Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software" Surely if you're OK with that, that heavily implies you are an enemy of open source? I think it's quite a reasonable rephrasing.
- vitno 6y ago
  Free Software is not open source and the article points that out as well. I'm not convinced they want to destroy Free Software either however.
DetroitThrow 6y ago
"Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software" in massive text without highlighting any of the legitimate, less presumptive grievances with Stallman's behavior seems to be a 1:1 drop in. Or are you concerned about their usage of open source in place of free software? They quite plainly state principles which are also shared with the open source movement are what they're defending, even not accounting for their colloquial synonyminity.
- lelanthran 6y ago
  > "Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software" Does not in any way imply that people not defending RMS wish to destroy Free Software. > 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__. This quote does, and is mischaracterising the position of the linked article.

gopiandcode 6y ago

> 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__. Firstly Free software != open source, so you probably meant free software in your original quote. Secondly, while there may be people who have legitimate concerns about RMS, the authors of the open letter have chosen not to highlight these claims but rather to rely on mischaracterisations and easily debunked lies. By supporting the open letter you are supporting these lies and thereby supporting an attack on free software. Maybe this is not the most productive characterisation of the situation, but the creators of the open letter were the ones that chose this framing by choosing to propagate such falsehoods. We must stand up against such disingenuous actions, and can view them as none other than some kind of motivated attack on Free software.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tomcooks 6y ago

If you think Stallman stands for open source you don't understand free software, open source, nor Stallman.

blaser-waffle 6y ago
Please, elaborate. What do all of those actually mean?
- tomcooks 6y ago
  I suggest going to gnu.org and stallman.org, and if you have questions write to the emails you find in the contact section of those respective sites
RichardCA 6y ago
I prefer to think of it as the political style you find in European countries with the parliamentary system. You have to form coalitions. The "pure" FSF position is like an ideological pole that some people are closer to than others. When this system functions properly, there is more room for nuance and shades of grey. Of course the danger is that we end up like Israel. They keep re-electing the same guy who is incapable of forming anything, but no one knows who the successor would be or even how such a person would operate in the current climate.
BTCOG 6y ago
All that Stallman stands for is freedom and open source software. Take that nonsense disinformation of yours elsewhere.

caslon 6y ago

I mean, the OSI is filled with people who work for proprietary companies, and open source was made to make free software enterprise. And the Linux Foundation has a bunch of people from companies that also promote largely proprietary technologies... So...yeah. The FSF is the last beacon of morality here, in its own strange, beady-eyed way. I'm not a huge fan of Stallman, myself (I have had many arguments with him), but the people opposing him are pretty awful people largely pushing proprietary software, actually.

geofft 6y ago
> I mean, the OSI is filled with people who work for proprietary companies So is GNU, though. For instance, https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html identifies the affiliations of most of the GCC steering committee, and they're generally proprietary companies. (Several work for Red Hat, a subsidiary of IBM.) Also, if we're going to claim that working for a proprietary-software company means you're not a member of the free software movement, the movement is very small indeed. > and open source was made to make free software enterprise. That may be the case, but the FSF has a long history of saying that you can work on free software for profit, too. Frankly, that's why the FSF exists separate from the GNU project - to be a place that you can order physical media with GNU software from and expense it. > but the people opposing him are pretty awful people largely pushing proprietary software, actually This is untrue of the authors of the open letter - you should look at their stated positions on free and proprietary software. (It might be true of some of the signatories, of course.)
- caslon 6y ago
  > So is GNU, though. For instance, https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html identifies the affiliations of most of the GCC steering committee, and they're generally proprietary companies. (Several work for Red Hat, a subsidiary of IBM.) Red Hat releases most things under free licenses and as far as I know everyone on the GCC steering committee from Red Hat was there pre-acquisition. That said, I don't love the GCC steering committee for many reasons (many of which admittedly were before most of their appointments). You are right, though, that much of the steering committee for GCC isn't pro-freedom as much as it is pro-convenience (and in the case of SiFive, is a very proprietary company). ...also, the GCC steering committee isn't representative of all of GNU. > Also, if we're going to claim that working for a proprietary-software company means you're not a member of the free software movement, the movement is very small indeed. This is true! I wouldn't say working for one excludes you (though it kind of does), but I would say working for one is incompatible with leading the free software movement or having moral ground to coup it. > That may be the case, but the FSF has a long history of saying that you can work on free software for profit, too. You can! It really is wonderful. Nothing I said conflicts, there. > Frankly, that's why the FSF exists separate from the GNU project - to be a place that you can order physical media with GNU software from and expense it. Half-truth, but close enough. Again, this doesn't conflict with anything I said. > This is untrue of the authors of the open letter - you should look at their stated positions on free and proprietary software. (It might be true of some of the signatories, of course.) That isn't actually true for all of the authors; one I can recall offhand, Garrett works for a company making proprietary software of the worst kind: the type that can kill people. And that's on top of a long history of opinions far more controversial than anything Stallman has been accused of, let alone done (the guy mocked a man who the UN has admitted was being tortured, for example).

rbanffy 6y ago

> 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 By reinstating Stallman the board created this controversy and deliberately sabotaged the FSF's mission of defending Free Software. It's ludicrous to imagine they didn't know what the consequences would be.

DetroitThrow 6y ago
Yeah, just now reading the individuals in the petition list, so many are contributors of GPL projects. If the goal was to defend or strengthen the free software movement, then turning every conversation about the subject into a purity test on the founder's actions instead of on, well, free software seems to run counter to that goal. And given the return announcement happened at the end of Libre planet without any of their organizers being aware beforehand, which FSF clarified as such afterwards, it telegraphs their awareness that it would be a controversy.

iocert 6y ago

You are not forced to defend him, in fact Leah calls some of Stallman's statements "idiotic" herself. But she is intellectually mature enough to see that most humans have had 5 stupid views over 30 years, and Stallman was just honest enough to write them down. You don't need to defend the views (some of which have already been retracted), but you have to accept Stallman as flawed human being. Stallman is currently still the only candidate who is uncompromising enough to drag the technological Overton Window in a good direction. So I don't think the article is trash at all, it is a refreshing, honest, bold take on the current elephant in the room: Corporate influence on free software. Such people inspire me to write free software.

Nursie 6y ago
> You don't need to defend the views (some of which have already been retracted), but you have to accept Stallman as flawed human being. This (the holding on to his views of 15 years ago, which he has since come to understand are wrong) is a major issue in the modern world IMHO. That's not to defend Stallman's more recent gaffes, or even those older ones. But it raises a question - we know people can learn, grow and change. At what point does society start to accept that something said online in the past is no longer representative of the living person? Because if it's "never", we appear to be gearing up for a future where politicians can only be people who have never set a single rhetorical foot wrong, and have been on-message since the day they came of age. And that scares me because such people are probably psychopaths or puritans.
- kodah 6y ago
  > But it raises a question - we know people can learn, grow and change I think we are starting to learn this. I believe this at my core because I've observed myself and others, but when I feel some type of way it's not always the first idea in my mind.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  I hope I never become famous, because someone will surely trawl through my 25 year old USENET posts and probably find something to hang me with. Probably something that was benign and harmless back in the 90’s but now offensive. I wonder what future discussion-archaeologists will find 25 years from now in our HN posts that by 2046 becomes offensive!

dang 6y ago

Your comment breaks several of the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing them and sticking to the rules? This is exactly the kind of thing they ask you not to post here. Everyone needs to follow the rules regardless of: (1) how right they are; (2) how right they feel they are; (3) how wrong someone is; (4) how wrong they feel someone is; and/or (5) how provocative something was. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

pankajdoharey 6y ago

People are multi faceted and the world is gray. One cannot undermine ones contributions to computer science for the sake of PC culture or aggreing to the popular opinion. People voted for trump should we hate those people or just disagree with their views? Popular opinion isnt the arbitor of truth!

ikerdanzel 6y ago

I know a lot of people that defend RMS and fully agreed with OP. I know a lot of people who don't care that much. As for your final conclusion that "if not you're enemy" I don't fully agreed with. You can be indifferent too. Not a single person that dislike RMS I know of can prove that he committed a crime. The dislikes are purely based on opinionated statements which is part and parcel of free speech. Showed me he committed something bad rather than "oh my feeling hurt because he said something not nice so he must be purged". I classified these kind of outraged people as snowflakes. Yeah, what a load of trash flakes.