5 ms·

It looks like the FSF is going to sit this one out like the SaaS revolution, to which they reacted late with the AGPL but did not push it. They are not working

It looks like the FSF is going to sit this one out like the SaaS revolution, to which they reacted late with the AGPL but did not push it. They are not working on a new license and Siewicz is already low-key pushing in favor of LLMs: "Many years ago, he said, photographs were not generally seen as being copyrightable. That changed over time as people figured out what could be done with that technology and the creativity it enabled. Photography may be a good analogy for LLMs, he suggested." I have zero trust in the FSF since they backstabbed Stallman. EDIT: Criticizing anything from LWN, be it Debian, Linux or FSF related, results in instant downvotes. LWN is not a critical publication and just lionizes whoever has a title and bloviates on a mailing list or at a conference.

gjvc 1y ago
Yes. 100% agree.
lukan 1y ago
"I have zero trust in the FSF since they backstabbed Stallman." The controversial line might have also been that one.
- bgwalter 1y ago
  Sure, but remember that the Stallman situation started with a highly clumsy Minsky/Epstein mail on an MIT mailing list. The Epstein coverup was bipartisan and now all tech companies are ostensibly on Trump's side and even finance his ballroom. Are there any protests or demands for the cancellation of Trump, Clinton, Wexner, Black, Barak? I have not seen any. The cancel tech people only go after those who they perceive as weak.
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    Cancellation of Stallman was the low point of that period, at least within tech, but it also made quite a lot of people aware that this monster of a practice must be resisted, or it will devour everyone unchecked. (Or, at least, anyone.)
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      You're forgetting the "second cancellation", where people brought legitimate (and often long-standing) criticisms against Richard Stallman. Cancelling a philosopher for having bad takes on age of consent, but otherwise drawing the line between "rape" and "not rape" in a sensible place, is not a good idea; but removing a community leader for a long history of applied misogyny is much more appropriate.
      - pessimizer 1y ago
        > the "second cancellation", where people brought legitimate (and often long-standing) criticisms against Richard Stallman. No, the reason why this "second cancellation" is vague is because it was the typical feeding frenzy that happens after a successful cancellation, where people hop on to paint previously uninteresting slanders in a new light. Stallman, before saying something goofy about Epstein, was constantly slandered by people who hated what he stood for and by people that were jealous of him. After he said the goofy thing, they all piled in to say "you should have listened to me." The "second cancellation" is when "he asked me out once at a conference" becomes redolent of sexual assault. None of them seem to like the politics of Free Software, either. They attempt to taint the entire philosophy with the false taint of Stallman saying that sleeping with older teenagers that seemed to be consenting isn't the worst crime in the world. The people who attacked him for that would defend any number of intimately Epstein-related people to the death; the goal imo was to break (or to take over and steer into a perversion of itself) Free Software. Every one of them was the "it's not fair to say that about Apple" type.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        > it was the typical feeding frenzy that happens after a successful cancellation It was actually a few years later, prompted by Richard Stallman's reinstatement by the board. I don't know what you mean by "feeding frenzy", but I habitually ignore the unreasonable voices in such cases: it's safe to assume I'm not talking about those. > "he asked me out once at a conference" That wasn't the main focus of the criticism I saw. However, there is an important difference between an attendee asking someone out at a conference, and an invited speaker (or organiser) asking someone out at a conference. If you're going to be in a leadership position, you need to be aware of power dynamics. That's a running theme throughout all of the criticism of Richard Stallman, if you choose to abstract it that way: for all he's written on the subject, he doesn't understand power dynamics in social interactions. He's fully capable of understanding it, but I think he prefers the simpler idea of (right-)libertarian freedom. (And by assuming he expects others to believe he'll behave according to his respect of the (right-)libertarian freedom of others, you can paint a very sympathetic picture of the man. That doesn't mean he should be in a leadership position for an organisation as important as the FSF, behaving as he does.) > None of them seem to like the politics of Free Software, either. Several of them are involved in other Free Software projects. To the extent those people have criticisms of the politics of Free Software, it's that it doesn't go far enough to protect user freedoms. (I suspect I shouldn't have got involved in this argument, since I'm clearly missing context you take for granted.)
  - duped 1y ago
    Millions of people have been trying for a decade to
    - bgwalter 1y ago
      The tech people have never tried to cancel Bill Clinton or Ehud Barak. They were vocal about Trump when it was politically expedient during Trump's first term and from 2020-2024. They are entirely silent since January 2025.
pessimizer 1y ago
I have no idea how to criticize them because I have no idea what to say about LLMs irt the GPL, other than that Free Software should try its best to legally protect itself from LLMs being trained on its code. I've always been in favor of the GPLs being pushed as proprietary, restrictive licenses, and being as aggressive in enforcement as any other restrictive license. GPL'd software is public property. The association with Open Source, "Creative Commons" and "Public Domain" code is nothing but a handicap; proprietary code can take advantage of all permissively licensed code without pretending that it shares anything in terms of philosophy, and without sharing back unless it finds it strategically advantageous. > They are not working on a new license and Siewicz is already low-key pushing in favor of LLMs I just have no idea what I would put in a new license, or what it means to be "in favor" of LLMs. Are Free Software supporters just supposed to not use them, ever? Even if they're only trained on permissively licensed code? Do you think that it means that people are pushing to allow LLMs to train on GPL-licensed software? I just don't understand what you're trying to say. I also have zero trust in the FSF over Stallman, simply because I don't hear people who speak like Stallman at the FSF i.e. I think his vision was pushed out along with his voice. But I do not understand what you're getting at.
- bgwalter 1y ago
  More or less what you said in your last paragraph: Stallman also reacted late to the web revolution, but at least he was passionate. That passion seems gone. I don't see any sense of urgency in the reported discussion or any will to fight against large corporations. The quoted parts in the article do not seem very prepared, there are a lot of maybes, no clear stance and no overarching vision that LLMs must be fought for software freedom.

gjvc 1y ago

Yes. 100% agree.

lukan 1y ago

"I have zero trust in the FSF since they backstabbed Stallman." The controversial line might have also been that one.

bgwalter 1y ago
Sure, but remember that the Stallman situation started with a highly clumsy Minsky/Epstein mail on an MIT mailing list. The Epstein coverup was bipartisan and now all tech companies are ostensibly on Trump's side and even finance his ballroom. Are there any protests or demands for the cancellation of Trump, Clinton, Wexner, Black, Barak? I have not seen any. The cancel tech people only go after those who they perceive as weak.
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  Cancellation of Stallman was the low point of that period, at least within tech, but it also made quite a lot of people aware that this monster of a practice must be resisted, or it will devour everyone unchecked. (Or, at least, anyone.)
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    You're forgetting the "second cancellation", where people brought legitimate (and often long-standing) criticisms against Richard Stallman. Cancelling a philosopher for having bad takes on age of consent, but otherwise drawing the line between "rape" and "not rape" in a sensible place, is not a good idea; but removing a community leader for a long history of applied misogyny is much more appropriate.
    - pessimizer 1y ago
      > the "second cancellation", where people brought legitimate (and often long-standing) criticisms against Richard Stallman. No, the reason why this "second cancellation" is vague is because it was the typical feeding frenzy that happens after a successful cancellation, where people hop on to paint previously uninteresting slanders in a new light. Stallman, before saying something goofy about Epstein, was constantly slandered by people who hated what he stood for and by people that were jealous of him. After he said the goofy thing, they all piled in to say "you should have listened to me." The "second cancellation" is when "he asked me out once at a conference" becomes redolent of sexual assault. None of them seem to like the politics of Free Software, either. They attempt to taint the entire philosophy with the false taint of Stallman saying that sleeping with older teenagers that seemed to be consenting isn't the worst crime in the world. The people who attacked him for that would defend any number of intimately Epstein-related people to the death; the goal imo was to break (or to take over and steer into a perversion of itself) Free Software. Every one of them was the "it's not fair to say that about Apple" type.
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        > it was the typical feeding frenzy that happens after a successful cancellation It was actually a few years later, prompted by Richard Stallman's reinstatement by the board. I don't know what you mean by "feeding frenzy", but I habitually ignore the unreasonable voices in such cases: it's safe to assume I'm not talking about those. > "he asked me out once at a conference" That wasn't the main focus of the criticism I saw. However, there is an important difference between an attendee asking someone out at a conference, and an invited speaker (or organiser) asking someone out at a conference. If you're going to be in a leadership position, you need to be aware of power dynamics. That's a running theme throughout all of the criticism of Richard Stallman, if you choose to abstract it that way: for all he's written on the subject, he doesn't understand power dynamics in social interactions. He's fully capable of understanding it, but I think he prefers the simpler idea of (right-)libertarian freedom. (And by assuming he expects others to believe he'll behave according to his respect of the (right-)libertarian freedom of others, you can paint a very sympathetic picture of the man. That doesn't mean he should be in a leadership position for an organisation as important as the FSF, behaving as he does.) > None of them seem to like the politics of Free Software, either. Several of them are involved in other Free Software projects. To the extent those people have criticisms of the politics of Free Software, it's that it doesn't go far enough to protect user freedoms. (I suspect I shouldn't have got involved in this argument, since I'm clearly missing context you take for granted.)
- duped 1y ago
  Millions of people have been trying for a decade to
  - bgwalter 1y ago
    The tech people have never tried to cancel Bill Clinton or Ehud Barak. They were vocal about Trump when it was politically expedient during Trump's first term and from 2020-2024. They are entirely silent since January 2025.

pessimizer 1y ago

I have no idea how to criticize them because I have no idea what to say about LLMs irt the GPL, other than that Free Software should try its best to legally protect itself from LLMs being trained on its code. I've always been in favor of the GPLs being pushed as proprietary, restrictive licenses, and being as aggressive in enforcement as any other restrictive license. GPL'd software is public property. The association with Open Source, "Creative Commons" and "Public Domain" code is nothing but a handicap; proprietary code can take advantage of all permissively licensed code without pretending that it shares anything in terms of philosophy, and without sharing back unless it finds it strategically advantageous. > They are not working on a new license and Siewicz is already low-key pushing in favor of LLMs I just have no idea what I would put in a new license, or what it means to be "in favor" of LLMs. Are Free Software supporters just supposed to not use them, ever? Even if they're only trained on permissively licensed code? Do you think that it means that people are pushing to allow LLMs to train on GPL-licensed software? I just don't understand what you're trying to say. I also have zero trust in the FSF over Stallman, simply because I don't hear people who speak like Stallman at the FSF i.e. I think his vision was pushed out along with his voice. But I do not understand what you're getting at.

bgwalter 1y ago
More or less what you said in your last paragraph: Stallman also reacted late to the web revolution, but at least he was passionate. That passion seems gone. I don't see any sense of urgency in the reported discussion or any will to fight against large corporations. The quoted parts in the article do not seem very prepared, there are a lot of maybes, no clear stance and no overarching vision that LLMs must be fought for software freedom.