5 ms·

I've seen a few articles lately that suggest that the FSF needs to get with the times and stop being so militant about free software. But if you're looking for

I've seen a few articles lately that suggest that the FSF needs to get with the times and stop being so militant about free software. But if you're looking for an organization whose philosophy is "free software is a good idea, but social issues in the tech community are more important, and who cares about 'microcode' or 'blobs'", there are already a lot of organizations that can offer that for you. That's Mozilla, that's the GNOME Foundation, to a first approximation that's every other open-source-related organization. Why does the FSF need to change to become the same as everyone else? (If you're looking for a text editor developed under that philosophy, I can recommend Visual Studio Code.)

ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
Are you arguing that FSF should deliberately disregard social issues to be different? Do social issues waste valuable care that could be spent caring free software? Or is there another reason to be frustrated by people caring about the social impact of their organization?
- csande17 4y ago
  I don't think the FSF should do anything just to be different. But I think it's a good idea for different organizations to work to improve the world in different ways. The FSF should focus on its core mission, and they should leave space for other organizations to focus on other issues.
  - xbar 4y ago
    Agreed. It seems to me that ensuring the freedom of free software addresses a fundamental social issue that without RMS never would have been met and could have been lost several times along the way. I see a lot of references to getting with the times and modernity in the complaints against RMS. I don't see much in the way of complaint that GNU is insufficiently free-as-in-freedom, which is the only thing I really want out of GNU.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  Free Software Foundation deals with the issue of software freedom. Not diabetes, not the poor children in Africa, not child slavery in China, not social justice - just software freedom. If they start caring about other issues unrelated to software freedom, they would have to divert their resources from the issues of software freedom to something else. Demanding they care about other issues is demanding they care less about software freedom, as their resources are limited, naturally.
  - blep_ 4y ago
    There's an argument to be made that they shouldn't actively make other things worse in the process of pursuing their own cause. It's the difference between "we're not actively campaigning for improvements around climate change because that's not our thing" (morally neutral, probably) and "unlimited free intercontinental supersonic jet flights around the world for people who license their work under the GPL" (may encourage GPL usage but at a high cost in pollution). (Controversial thread disclaimer: this is a counterargument solely to your comment, and not an expression of any particular opinion outside of what I explicitly wrote here.)
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      > There's an argument to be made that they shouldn't actively make other things worse in the process of pursuing their own cause. To make such an argument, you first have to demonstrate how exactly is FSF making other things worse. Of course, "not doing anything to help X" is not the same as "actively making X worse".
      - ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
        You don't have to be an activist just because you give a damn. Being a good citizen in the world means caring enough about other people to not trample them. Not caring simply means not bothering to check if you're stepping on people and not changing course once you found out that you have. For example, having a spokesperson who some people actually listen to publicly question whether a very young woman coerced by Jeffrey Epstein into having sex with his friend can justifiably say she was "assaulted." If he actually cared as much about his social impact as his friend's justifiably ruined reputation, he'd have just shut his mouth at the very least. If you think that's an unreasonable expectation then that's just sad.
layer8 4y ago
RMS' stance on the technical topics concerning Emacs here (which the larger portion of the article is about) really doesn't make any sense even in the context of strict free software advocacy. This is just hurting both the Emacs project and the reputation of the FSF.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  It is a technical solution to the problem of GCC being used by proprietary software without them giving back anything to the community. I think he made the wrong call and should have opened it up and gone for a re-licensed GCC under the AGPL or something similar if crippling proprietary software was so important.
  - leni536 4y ago
    Relicensing gcc would hurt FSF in reputation way more, especially for people who contributed to gcc and didn't want it to be AGPL.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
guerrilla 4y ago
> Why does the FSF need to change to become the same as everyone else? I think we know why. The point is to cancel Stallman and thus his ideas and free software. People that actually care about the issues aren't wasting their time prioritizing this. People who want freedom dead so that they can profit are though.

ElemenoPicuares 4y ago

Are you arguing that FSF should deliberately disregard social issues to be different? Do social issues waste valuable care that could be spent caring free software? Or is there another reason to be frustrated by people caring about the social impact of their organization?

csande17 4y ago
I don't think the FSF should do anything just to be different. But I think it's a good idea for different organizations to work to improve the world in different ways. The FSF should focus on its core mission, and they should leave space for other organizations to focus on other issues.
- xbar 4y ago
  Agreed. It seems to me that ensuring the freedom of free software addresses a fundamental social issue that without RMS never would have been met and could have been lost several times along the way. I see a lot of references to getting with the times and modernity in the complaints against RMS. I don't see much in the way of complaint that GNU is insufficiently free-as-in-freedom, which is the only thing I really want out of GNU.
bheadmaster 4y ago
Free Software Foundation deals with the issue of software freedom. Not diabetes, not the poor children in Africa, not child slavery in China, not social justice - just software freedom. If they start caring about other issues unrelated to software freedom, they would have to divert their resources from the issues of software freedom to something else. Demanding they care about other issues is demanding they care less about software freedom, as their resources are limited, naturally.
- blep_ 4y ago
  There's an argument to be made that they shouldn't actively make other things worse in the process of pursuing their own cause. It's the difference between "we're not actively campaigning for improvements around climate change because that's not our thing" (morally neutral, probably) and "unlimited free intercontinental supersonic jet flights around the world for people who license their work under the GPL" (may encourage GPL usage but at a high cost in pollution). (Controversial thread disclaimer: this is a counterargument solely to your comment, and not an expression of any particular opinion outside of what I explicitly wrote here.)
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > There's an argument to be made that they shouldn't actively make other things worse in the process of pursuing their own cause. To make such an argument, you first have to demonstrate how exactly is FSF making other things worse. Of course, "not doing anything to help X" is not the same as "actively making X worse".
    - ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
      You don't have to be an activist just because you give a damn. Being a good citizen in the world means caring enough about other people to not trample them. Not caring simply means not bothering to check if you're stepping on people and not changing course once you found out that you have. For example, having a spokesperson who some people actually listen to publicly question whether a very young woman coerced by Jeffrey Epstein into having sex with his friend can justifiably say she was "assaulted." If he actually cared as much about his social impact as his friend's justifiably ruined reputation, he'd have just shut his mouth at the very least. If you think that's an unreasonable expectation then that's just sad.

layer8 4y ago

RMS' stance on the technical topics concerning Emacs here (which the larger portion of the article is about) really doesn't make any sense even in the context of strict free software advocacy. This is just hurting both the Emacs project and the reputation of the FSF.

thrown_22 4y ago
It is a technical solution to the problem of GCC being used by proprietary software without them giving back anything to the community. I think he made the wrong call and should have opened it up and gone for a re-licensed GCC under the AGPL or something similar if crippling proprietary software was so important.
- leni536 4y ago
  Relicensing gcc would hurt FSF in reputation way more, especially for people who contributed to gcc and didn't want it to be AGPL.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

guerrilla 4y ago

> Why does the FSF need to change to become the same as everyone else? I think we know why. The point is to cancel Stallman and thus his ideas and free software. People that actually care about the issues aren't wasting their time prioritizing this. People who want freedom dead so that they can profit are though.