4 ms·

I don't think your description of the second group is very charitable.

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• yellowapple 6y ago
  Charitable or no, it seems to be accurate in a day and age where large corporations "heart" "open source" while simultaneously hindering software freedom, digital privacy, and the like on never-before-seen scales. It seems mighty convenient that public outrage happens to be aiming at one of the most vocal opponents of things like DRM and online surveillance, and happens to be of at least some benefit to those peddling said DRM and online surveillance. And it doesn't seem like that second group has much of an intention to be "charitable" to those in the first group or the sympathizers thereof. That doesn't necessarily mean there's free reign to be as uncharitable as possible, but it does encourage that feeling to be mutual.
  • UncleMeat 6y ago
    But this is begging the question. The post assumes that Stallman's good work does outweigh the bad and that the only way to conclude that he is causing problems is if one doesn't believe in the FSF principles at all. But that's just not true. One can absolutely be in support of the most intense FSF principles and still conclude that Stallman is not an appropriate leader. As evidence, consider the actual FSF members who support his ousting. They aren't just corporate stooges who see GPL as a cancer.