4 ms·

The Free Software Foundation's leadership crisis worsens

9 points by CrankyBear 6y ago

salawat 6y ago
The FSF is not everyone else's platform for megaphoning their "inclusiveness and diversity" agenda, especially when they cannot manage to demonstrate the very practice themselves. This is why I was fundamentally against any type of Code of Conduct when that was all the rage. At the end of the day, an inclusive culture doesn't meed Codes of Conduct to self-perpetuate. The movement will sustain on it's own virtues. It's exactly when people start trying to put something on paper when you find the fangs are coming out. Even Copyleft, in a way, is the exception that proves the rule. It wouldn't even exist if people were not implicitly forced to manage licenses or IP or what have you. The GPL was born and codified in response to the practice of ensnaring and hobbling users in pursuit of ease of support by hardware and software manufacturers. The codification of producer's interests over consumer's, sowed the inevitable beginnings of the Free Software/Copyleft license. The rest of FSF management are worried about the movement/organization. That's not their job. Their job is worrying about encroachment on User's freedoms by tech elite. Let 'em go if their conscience haunts them that badly. Sometimes, even when everyone else involved thinks you're wrong, you just have to shoulder the burden and bust through. There's just no other way to do it.
IAmEveryone 6y ago
> According to some defenders of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) board's decision to put founder Richard M. Stallman (RMS) back on its board, the people demanding that RMS be removed are an ambush mob of open-source and corporate outsiders and social justice warriors. Those arguments don't stand up well in the cold light of facts such as three FSF management team members resigning and that the GCC Steering Committee has removed RMS from its membership. This, as well as the rest of this piece, reads like an explicit condemnation of the consensus here in previews threads on the topic.

9 points by CrankyBear 6y ago

The FSF is not everyone else's platform for megaphoning their "inclusiveness and diversity" agenda, especially when they cannot manage to demonstrate the very practice themselves. This is why I was fundamentally against any type of Code of Conduct when that was all the rage. At the end of the day, an inclusive culture doesn't meed Codes of Conduct to self-perpetuate. The movement will sustain on it's own virtues. It's exactly when people start trying to put something on paper when you find the fangs are coming out. Even Copyleft, in a way, is the exception that proves the rule. It wouldn't even exist if people were not implicitly forced to manage licenses or IP or what have you. The GPL was born and codified in response to the practice of ensnaring and hobbling users in pursuit of ease of support by hardware and software manufacturers. The codification of producer's interests over consumer's, sowed the inevitable beginnings of the Free Software/Copyleft license. The rest of FSF management are worried about the movement/organization. That's not their job. Their job is worrying about encroachment on User's freedoms by tech elite. Let 'em go if their conscience haunts them that badly. Sometimes, even when everyone else involved thinks you're wrong, you just have to shoulder the burden and bust through. There's just no other way to do it.

IAmEveryone 6y ago

> According to some defenders of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) board's decision to put founder Richard M. Stallman (RMS) back on its board, the people demanding that RMS be removed are an ambush mob of open-source and corporate outsiders and social justice warriors. Those arguments don't stand up well in the cold light of facts such as three FSF management team members resigning and that the GCC Steering Committee has removed RMS from its membership. This, as well as the rest of this piece, reads like an explicit condemnation of the consensus here in previews threads on the topic.