4 ms·

One can't deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS's caliber doesn't ye

One can't deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS's caliber doesn't yet exist. I'm afraid, for this reason alone quite a few people get to think that if you consistently apply software freedom principles in all parts of your life where you use or produce software, it must come with the baggage of all other flaws of RMS's character, complete with questionable hygiene habits and abrasive personality. As if you just can't have the same principles, but bring in flaws of your own.

blablabla123 6y ago
I mean for years it has been an open secret that organizations and also people are okay with certain degrees of problematic behaviours. I cannot remember how often I read blog articles linked on HN about HR departments ignoring reasonable complaints. At some point it is then also necessary to have direct words every now and then. Otherwise this system is just passed on and never improved. I also have serious doubts that toxic behaviour is supposed to be particularly bad in IT orgs. (What about investment banks or construction businesses?) At the same time the sentiment towards IT is "traditionally" really bad. That said, as long as RMS didn't do anything outside of the law, it might be positive to give him another chance in the FSF world. This would set also an example for a possible way out for other orgs beyond canceling. Although I still think they should put a new person on the top and put RMS next to that person. Also to make the FSF as open as it wants to appear.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  > That said, as long as RMS didn't do anything outside of the law. I always balk at the introduction of "the law" into these discussions. Inherently there are all kinds of behavior that is legal but can and should get you fired. Talking about the law here is just setting the bar unreasonably high.
  - einpoklum 6y ago
    > I always balk at the introduction of "the law" into these discussions. Me too, but > Inherently there are all kinds of behavior that is legal but can and should get you fired. The thing is, employers are typically not acceptable judges of morality and legitimacy of actions. They have inherent biases in general, and specific ones have a bunch of specific interests of the specific company owners or NGO factions. Which is why it is problematic to move from a moral judgement of someone's actions to a n expectation of them getting fired. -- ... regardless, Stallman is not being hired as an employee, but elected to be a board member, which is something very different.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      > The thing is, employers are typically not acceptable judges of morality and legitimacy of actions. Nice goalpost moving. “Morality” is not the same as “you get to keep your job”. If I stand on the counter and flick every single customer off and tell them that they should <explicatives deleted>, I should be fired. This isn’t making a moral judgement at all, it’s making a judgement about whether or not I’m still fit for the job. > Stallman is not being hired as an employee, but elected to be a board member, which is something very different. The bar for being elected to the board is arguably higher than being hired as an employee.
goodpoint 6y ago
> One can't deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS's caliber doesn't yet exist. I can name at least 10 people that I find more suitable than RMS, including: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Sandler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Sandler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_M._Kuhn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_M._Kuhn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bdale_Garbee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bdale_Garbee
- WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
  Garbee looks like he could be it (he's a programmer, not just an activist), but I'm wondering if he could continue the philosophical work of free software with the same kind of vigor, like the commentary on new tech trends through the freedom lens that RMS has been doing. If there was one single reason RMS should remain in any function at FSF at all, it would be his writing as a philosopher (being a jerk is actually a plus in this case, cf Diogenes). I myself probably would wish RMS to retire honorably in time and contribute with writing. Would end well for everyone involved. Doesn't make the smear campaign any more justified, against fucking anyone.
ashtonkem 6y ago
> One can't deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS's caliber doesn't yet exist. All of these statements are arguably orthogonal to actually leading the FSF. I would in fact argue that such rigid consistency is actually a serious detriment, as it explicitly lets the perfect become the enemy of the good. > I'm afraid, for this reason alone quite a few people get to think that if you consistently apply software freedom principles in all parts of your life where you use or produce software, it must come with the baggage of all other flaws of RMS's character, complete with questionable hygiene habits and abrasive personality. Well said.
marcan_42 6y ago
RMS is only consistent in that his opinions are, consistently, where they were in the 80s, and have remained unchanged for the past 40 years. They are outdated and entirely self-inconsistent with the world in 2021, and at odds with true freedom for users. This applies to women and inclusivity, which has been written about ad nauseam. But it also applies to their own philosophy and software freedom. Here's a meta-thread on just how bad the FSF's and RMS's policies around software and hardware freedom are: https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1377899929209774081 https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1377899929209774081 They promote making hardware less introspectable and more expensive for precisely zero benefit to users' freedom, only to the illusion of freedom. They promote hardware with giant proprietary ROMs as "respects your freedom", because you can't see them. They promote crippling hardware (a la Intel product segmentation), to permanently destroy parts which may "lure" users into using non-free software. They promote sabotaging efforts to inform users about security flaws, if fixing those flaws would require applying non-free patches to non-free software they are already running, because the patches would make that non-free software's existence evident. Their entire philosophy isn't based about the freedom to inspect, modify, and understand your software and your devices; it's based around not having any obvious binary blobs in your filesystem. In addition, some of their licenses are so utterly bad as to be completely broken (and legally untested). Their own guidance about their own licenses is bad and negligent at times. They have at least once abused their "or any later version" powers to backdoor in a relicensing exception, that was so poorly written as to have a vastly wider scope than intended. Don't believe me? Read the above thread, the sources and explanations are all there. RMS and the FSF do not have the slightest clue how to promote an ideology in supports of users' rights in 2021. They are an ossified organization based on outdated principles, which no longer serve users' interests. The world has moved on past the FSF.
- easton 6y ago
  Old thread, apologies, but if you were curious: the origin of the proprietary blob exception was in Stallman's policy that "if the software can't be modified at all, software freedom is irrelevant". As he wanted to be able to use, say, a microwave that had a proprietary ROM for a timer without needing the source code. I'd argue that there's a gigantic gulf between a microwave and the baseband firmware of a cellular modem that governs all communications into and out of the device, but apparently they don't see it that way.

blablabla123 6y ago

I mean for years it has been an open secret that organizations and also people are okay with certain degrees of problematic behaviours. I cannot remember how often I read blog articles linked on HN about HR departments ignoring reasonable complaints. At some point it is then also necessary to have direct words every now and then. Otherwise this system is just passed on and never improved. I also have serious doubts that toxic behaviour is supposed to be particularly bad in IT orgs. (What about investment banks or construction businesses?) At the same time the sentiment towards IT is "traditionally" really bad. That said, as long as RMS didn't do anything outside of the law, it might be positive to give him another chance in the FSF world. This would set also an example for a possible way out for other orgs beyond canceling. Although I still think they should put a new person on the top and put RMS next to that person. Also to make the FSF as open as it wants to appear.

ashtonkem 6y ago
> That said, as long as RMS didn't do anything outside of the law. I always balk at the introduction of "the law" into these discussions. Inherently there are all kinds of behavior that is legal but can and should get you fired. Talking about the law here is just setting the bar unreasonably high.
- einpoklum 6y ago
  > I always balk at the introduction of "the law" into these discussions. Me too, but > Inherently there are all kinds of behavior that is legal but can and should get you fired. The thing is, employers are typically not acceptable judges of morality and legitimacy of actions. They have inherent biases in general, and specific ones have a bunch of specific interests of the specific company owners or NGO factions. Which is why it is problematic to move from a moral judgement of someone's actions to a n expectation of them getting fired. -- ... regardless, Stallman is not being hired as an employee, but elected to be a board member, which is something very different.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    > The thing is, employers are typically not acceptable judges of morality and legitimacy of actions. Nice goalpost moving. “Morality” is not the same as “you get to keep your job”. If I stand on the counter and flick every single customer off and tell them that they should <explicatives deleted>, I should be fired. This isn’t making a moral judgement at all, it’s making a judgement about whether or not I’m still fit for the job. > Stallman is not being hired as an employee, but elected to be a board member, which is something very different. The bar for being elected to the board is arguably higher than being hired as an employee.

goodpoint 6y ago

> One can't deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS's caliber doesn't yet exist. I can name at least 10 people that I find more suitable than RMS, including: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Sandler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Sandler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_M._Kuhn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_M._Kuhn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bdale_Garbee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bdale_Garbee

WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
Garbee looks like he could be it (he's a programmer, not just an activist), but I'm wondering if he could continue the philosophical work of free software with the same kind of vigor, like the commentary on new tech trends through the freedom lens that RMS has been doing. If there was one single reason RMS should remain in any function at FSF at all, it would be his writing as a philosopher (being a jerk is actually a plus in this case, cf Diogenes). I myself probably would wish RMS to retire honorably in time and contribute with writing. Would end well for everyone involved. Doesn't make the smear campaign any more justified, against fucking anyone.

ashtonkem 6y ago

> One can't deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS's caliber doesn't yet exist. All of these statements are arguably orthogonal to actually leading the FSF. I would in fact argue that such rigid consistency is actually a serious detriment, as it explicitly lets the perfect become the enemy of the good. > I'm afraid, for this reason alone quite a few people get to think that if you consistently apply software freedom principles in all parts of your life where you use or produce software, it must come with the baggage of all other flaws of RMS's character, complete with questionable hygiene habits and abrasive personality. Well said.

marcan_42 6y ago

RMS is only consistent in that his opinions are, consistently, where they were in the 80s, and have remained unchanged for the past 40 years. They are outdated and entirely self-inconsistent with the world in 2021, and at odds with true freedom for users. This applies to women and inclusivity, which has been written about ad nauseam. But it also applies to their own philosophy and software freedom. Here's a meta-thread on just how bad the FSF's and RMS's policies around software and hardware freedom are: https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1377899929209774081 https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1377899929209774081 They promote making hardware less introspectable and more expensive for precisely zero benefit to users' freedom, only to the illusion of freedom. They promote hardware with giant proprietary ROMs as "respects your freedom", because you can't see them. They promote crippling hardware (a la Intel product segmentation), to permanently destroy parts which may "lure" users into using non-free software. They promote sabotaging efforts to inform users about security flaws, if fixing those flaws would require applying non-free patches to non-free software they are already running, because the patches would make that non-free software's existence evident. Their entire philosophy isn't based about the freedom to inspect, modify, and understand your software and your devices; it's based around not having any obvious binary blobs in your filesystem. In addition, some of their licenses are so utterly bad as to be completely broken (and legally untested). Their own guidance about their own licenses is bad and negligent at times. They have at least once abused their "or any later version" powers to backdoor in a relicensing exception, that was so poorly written as to have a vastly wider scope than intended. Don't believe me? Read the above thread, the sources and explanations are all there. RMS and the FSF do not have the slightest clue how to promote an ideology in supports of users' rights in 2021. They are an ossified organization based on outdated principles, which no longer serve users' interests. The world has moved on past the FSF.

easton 6y ago
Old thread, apologies, but if you were curious: the origin of the proprietary blob exception was in Stallman's policy that "if the software can't be modified at all, software freedom is irrelevant". As he wanted to be able to use, say, a microwave that had a proprietary ROM for a timer without needing the source code. I'd argue that there's a gigantic gulf between a microwave and the baseband firmware of a cellular modem that governs all communications into and out of the device, but apparently they don't see it that way.