Red Hat Pulls Free Software Foundation Funding over Richard Stallman's Return(theregister.com)
theregister.com
Red Hat Pulls Free Software Foundation Funding over Richard Stallman's Return
https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/26/redhat_fsf_funding_richard_stallman/
113 comments
From the article:
> Stallman suggested Minsky might somehow not have known she'd been forced to do so.
> In the same thread on MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory listserv, he also referred to Epstein's victims as a "harem."
Is that the full story? That sounds very mild comments to trigger such a strong reaction. I don't really understand what is awful here, the first comment seems to say "Maybe Minsky wasn't aware", which sounds plausible (though, I wouldn't personally bet on it...) and doesn't invalidate the woman's claims or justify Minsky or Epstein actions. The second one seems to use "harem" to design how Epstein was behaving around his victims by surrounding himself with young women that he was exploiting, which sounds insulting against him and not them.
Am I missing something here?
Edit: fixed some typos
> Stallman suggested Minsky might somehow not have known she'd been forced to do so.
> In the same thread on MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory listserv, he also referred to Epstein's victims as a "harem."
Is that the full story? That sounds very mild comments to trigger such a strong reaction. I don't really understand what is awful here, the first comment seems to say "Maybe Minsky wasn't aware", which sounds plausible (though, I wouldn't personally bet on it...) and doesn't invalidate the woman's claims or justify Minsky or Epstein actions. The second one seems to use "harem" to design how Epstein was behaving around his victims by surrounding himself with young women that he was exploiting, which sounds insulting against him and not them.
Am I missing something here?
Edit: fixed some typos
No, I don't think you're missing anything.
People are reacting to what they've heard others say about Stallman, rather than what he actually said.
People are reacting to what they've heard others say about Stallman, rather than what he actually said.
Pretty much. If you read the letters and news articles, he seems horrible but when you read the source material its much much more tame.
He is being called a transphobe because he wants English to contain a new word which is singular and non gendered because he doesn't think 'they' is appropriate since it has historically been collective. Since he uses his new invented word for this purpose, he is being called transphobic for not respecting peoples choice to use 'they'.
When you look in to the details of what rms is being grilled over, he looks like someone who is honest and well intentioned but fails to communicate in a non controversial way.
He is being called a transphobe because he wants English to contain a new word which is singular and non gendered because he doesn't think 'they' is appropriate since it has historically been collective. Since he uses his new invented word for this purpose, he is being called transphobic for not respecting peoples choice to use 'they'.
When you look in to the details of what rms is being grilled over, he looks like someone who is honest and well intentioned but fails to communicate in a non controversial way.
> He is being called a transphobe because he wants English to contain a new word which is singular and non gendered because he doesn't think 'they' is appropriate since it has historically been collective. Since he uses his new invented word for this purpose, he is being called transphobic for not respecting peoples choice to use 'they'.
Am I missing something or isn't this exactly what neutral language folks do with their made-up pronouns (Xe/Xem etc)? So they singled out Stallman for doing the same?
Also, interesting to see another flagged thread that points to an article with strictly factual information from a very popular source here.
Am I missing something or isn't this exactly what neutral language folks do with their made-up pronouns (Xe/Xem etc)? So they singled out Stallman for doing the same?
Also, interesting to see another flagged thread that points to an article with strictly factual information from a very popular source here.
From what I can tell, the problem they see is that stallman is proposing one standard word which applies and is correct for everyone rather than allowing everyone to create their own words and respecting their choices.
[deleted]
Very few people care about newly invented pronouns. The main problem people have with Stallman and pronouns is he refuses to use the standard word and uses a strange and alienating word instead.
But Stallman would argue that the standard word, if we're talking about 'they', 'them' and 'their', is inappropriate. He acknowledges that these words have historically been used in the singular, but convincingly points out that this merely proves that our ancestors also faced the same paucity of choice for referring to the indefinite singular.
What Stallman didn't employ in his defence, and a fact also ignored by many proponents of 'they' who regularly cite its historical usage as proof of transphobia in anyone who refuses to engage in the practice the now, is that this historical usage was applied when the subject of the sentence was indefinite, whereas the modern call to use 'they' is in the case of a specific, known person. This usage does not have a long linguistic history, regardless of whether the existence of such would, in itself, form compelling grounds on which to continue its usage.
What Stallman didn't employ in his defence, and a fact also ignored by many proponents of 'they' who regularly cite its historical usage as proof of transphobia in anyone who refuses to engage in the practice the now, is that this historical usage was applied when the subject of the sentence was indefinite, whereas the modern call to use 'they' is in the case of a specific, known person. This usage does not have a long linguistic history, regardless of whether the existence of such would, in itself, form compelling grounds on which to continue its usage.
Stallman's arguments don't make the new words less strange and alienating in practice.
His claim about our ancestors is wrong. They made up new words all the time. Including alternatives to singular they.
Stallman uses the new pronouns for any subject not known to be male or female. Singular they was used the same way historically.
His claim about our ancestors is wrong. They made up new words all the time. Including alternatives to singular they.
Stallman uses the new pronouns for any subject not known to be male or female. Singular they was used the same way historically.
People stop perceiving good intentions when someone refuses reasonable requests.
Singular they has been widely used for over 600 years.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Older_usage
Singular they has been widely used for over 600 years.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Older_usage
Regardless, singular use still introduces ambiguity in communication.
The basic function of a language is to communicate clearly and unambiguously.
I say the same whenever I encounter any attempt to overload an existing word.
The basic function of a language is to communicate clearly and unambiguously.
I say the same whenever I encounter any attempt to overload an existing word.
> Regardless, singular use still introduces ambiguity in communication.
No, it doesn't much in practice, and less than using a gendered pronoun for situations of unknown gender does.
No, it doesn't much in practice, and less than using a gendered pronoun for situations of unknown gender does.
If you don't regularly run into issues with people dropping pronouns without proper or with ambiguous antecedents, who exactly are you talking to? It seems like just trying to get normal folks to unambiguously state nounwise what they are talking about tends more often than not to get hackles raised because people (wrongly) seem to assume you're being patronizing.
I just maintain more conversational context than most, and pronouns can get askew really quick. Please, I don't need yet another layer of faux pas to be added on to getting people to unambiguously communicate.
I just maintain more conversational context than most, and pronouns can get askew really quick. Please, I don't need yet another layer of faux pas to be added on to getting people to unambiguously communicate.
This situation is not a dialogue.
Cancel culture is a flaky allocator, leaking cultural resources, until we 'splode.
Cancel culture is a flaky allocator, leaking cultural resources, until we 'splode.
If you haven't met RMS in person, it's hard to understand what a raging asshole he is. Frankly I'm surprised it has taken this long for him to be called to account for his behavior.
That does not remotely justify ousting him on the basis of lies, which is what happened before. If you do that, it's really hard to argue that the correct course is anything but reversing the actions you took that were driven by lies.
He was staying for a few days at a colleagues house and even thought he seems to have some weird preferences I didn't really hear anything negative about him. Seems to be a nice guy to be honest and I trust in my colleagues ability to be a good judge of character. (Didn't meet RMS myself so can't attest for him myself)
Here's a long-term FSF insiders perspective: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html - that specific instance was just the thing that pushed it over the edge in the end.
And now they surprised everyone with this return announcement out of the blue, with little to nothing indicating any commitment to change.
And another source detailing previous instances of trying to do something about it, more quietly: https://www.harihareswara.net/sumana/2021/03/26/0
And both of those posters made thoroughly emotive based arguments which boiled down to difference of opinion. Differences of opinion are not justification for ousting.
Stallman was more concerned with preservation of a historical record of hacker culture (The abort joke). Karen (was that her name? I think I may have forgotten) wanted it rewritten, along with other instances of "90's hacker detritus". Stallman refused. Coding is as much artform as it is engineering, and in that sense, a relic of the times. To wipe it out is to assault our very shared hacker culture's. It was against a wave of PC inclusiveness oriented imperialism that Stallman remained opposed to. The other fellow, Brad got frustrated because Stallman is a stickler for internal consistency of principle and adherence of the meaning of language to the form of life it is a nominative signpost for; which is something I personally find to be one of the best qualities in him.
You've posted something in your link that raises the question of whether any of these complaints should be considered valid.
>No one is indespensable, no one is disposable.
This is equality. The GNU maintainers raised their concern to the Board, the Board made their decision, the Maintainers don't like the outcome, even though the Board lived up to the very principles that Stallman's detractors would leverage to oust the board. As I've mentioned to user geofft elsewhere, you don't get to claim favoritism when your problem was raised and considered, but it just didn't go your way. You also don't get to trash someone just because they chafe with you when they aren't actively detracting from the mission. Now; if you want to challenge his fitness based on forwarding the mission based on objective results, that's one thing, but you have to make a dang good case given he bloody started the entire movement, and plays a significant part in codifying and acting as an arbiter of it's principle direction.
I won't even go into the whole "non-adherence to Safe-Space Policies", as I see those as a fundamental impediment to the pursuit of truth and intellectual advancement. Furthermore, after going through the profferred librePlanet recording, there is no interjection by Stallman that I can find inappropriate, even what I'm guessing is the alleged outburst at the end where Stallman asserts that as the President of the FSF, he is not bound by rules, as to me, it is clear that it precipitated out of a procedural question of the event in that room being at "time". Others were free to leave, and he was exercising perogative after the presentation had officially come to a close. He clarified his stance as the author of the GNU manifesto, and there is nothing controversial to doing so. Everyone had seen what they had come to see.
This is exactly the character of the ridicule and bad faith that seems endemic to this controversy. There isn't anything to it on further examination. If you only read and accept at the surface level, or ascribe to the notion that it is somehow inappropriate to engage in a deeper dive or clarification of something you yourself are the progenitor of or ceremonially highest authority on is wrong, do any of these accusations this seem to hold water. If that is truly the issue that the GNU maintainers are in a tizzy about, then it does not at all seem like Stallman is the one in error, and it is, in fact, those accusing him, that are. Every time I look into something offered as a datapoint in support of his dismissal, I see a human being acting in good faith. There is nothing wrong there.
Just to prove that I'm not cherry picking in Stallman's case, I've had a similar event back in my college days when I was specifically asked to not give feedback or ask questions with regard to someone's presentation. I had to respectfully decline, on the principle that in the event they (the asker) or someone in the audience were to continue working on the subject matter at hand, it would only detract from the pursuit and furthering of the state of the art down the road to not in good faith ask additional questions where their material raised them, or had holes. It's a question of integrity, and I cannot begrudge someone for doing so. It can be uncomfortable. Remaining calm and defending one's thesis is not a natural skill, but nevertheless critical in the pursuit of the truth, and nothing but it. If we don't subject that which is before us to the acid of a contrasting or different viewpoint, we really don't get the most out of any intellectual encounter.
My moral compass is not skewed that hard (at least I like to think it isn't, but then again, no one does), and I'm probably in possession of much rounder edges than I was 5 or 10 years ago, but I can't accept that half of these complaints are well founded or anything else than "how dare they not capitulate". It's rather the point that they don't. If they were that easy to get to roll over, I wager they shouldn't be stewards of Free Software.
I want to get behimd it; but... I'm just not seeing FSF or Stallman as having done anything wrong, all things considered.
Stallman was more concerned with preservation of a historical record of hacker culture (The abort joke). Karen (was that her name? I think I may have forgotten) wanted it rewritten, along with other instances of "90's hacker detritus". Stallman refused. Coding is as much artform as it is engineering, and in that sense, a relic of the times. To wipe it out is to assault our very shared hacker culture's. It was against a wave of PC inclusiveness oriented imperialism that Stallman remained opposed to. The other fellow, Brad got frustrated because Stallman is a stickler for internal consistency of principle and adherence of the meaning of language to the form of life it is a nominative signpost for; which is something I personally find to be one of the best qualities in him.
You've posted something in your link that raises the question of whether any of these complaints should be considered valid.
>No one is indespensable, no one is disposable.
This is equality. The GNU maintainers raised their concern to the Board, the Board made their decision, the Maintainers don't like the outcome, even though the Board lived up to the very principles that Stallman's detractors would leverage to oust the board. As I've mentioned to user geofft elsewhere, you don't get to claim favoritism when your problem was raised and considered, but it just didn't go your way. You also don't get to trash someone just because they chafe with you when they aren't actively detracting from the mission. Now; if you want to challenge his fitness based on forwarding the mission based on objective results, that's one thing, but you have to make a dang good case given he bloody started the entire movement, and plays a significant part in codifying and acting as an arbiter of it's principle direction.
I won't even go into the whole "non-adherence to Safe-Space Policies", as I see those as a fundamental impediment to the pursuit of truth and intellectual advancement. Furthermore, after going through the profferred librePlanet recording, there is no interjection by Stallman that I can find inappropriate, even what I'm guessing is the alleged outburst at the end where Stallman asserts that as the President of the FSF, he is not bound by rules, as to me, it is clear that it precipitated out of a procedural question of the event in that room being at "time". Others were free to leave, and he was exercising perogative after the presentation had officially come to a close. He clarified his stance as the author of the GNU manifesto, and there is nothing controversial to doing so. Everyone had seen what they had come to see.
This is exactly the character of the ridicule and bad faith that seems endemic to this controversy. There isn't anything to it on further examination. If you only read and accept at the surface level, or ascribe to the notion that it is somehow inappropriate to engage in a deeper dive or clarification of something you yourself are the progenitor of or ceremonially highest authority on is wrong, do any of these accusations this seem to hold water. If that is truly the issue that the GNU maintainers are in a tizzy about, then it does not at all seem like Stallman is the one in error, and it is, in fact, those accusing him, that are. Every time I look into something offered as a datapoint in support of his dismissal, I see a human being acting in good faith. There is nothing wrong there.
Just to prove that I'm not cherry picking in Stallman's case, I've had a similar event back in my college days when I was specifically asked to not give feedback or ask questions with regard to someone's presentation. I had to respectfully decline, on the principle that in the event they (the asker) or someone in the audience were to continue working on the subject matter at hand, it would only detract from the pursuit and furthering of the state of the art down the road to not in good faith ask additional questions where their material raised them, or had holes. It's a question of integrity, and I cannot begrudge someone for doing so. It can be uncomfortable. Remaining calm and defending one's thesis is not a natural skill, but nevertheless critical in the pursuit of the truth, and nothing but it. If we don't subject that which is before us to the acid of a contrasting or different viewpoint, we really don't get the most out of any intellectual encounter.
My moral compass is not skewed that hard (at least I like to think it isn't, but then again, no one does), and I'm probably in possession of much rounder edges than I was 5 or 10 years ago, but I can't accept that half of these complaints are well founded or anything else than "how dare they not capitulate". It's rather the point that they don't. If they were that easy to get to roll over, I wager they shouldn't be stewards of Free Software.
I want to get behimd it; but... I'm just not seeing FSF or Stallman as having done anything wrong, all things considered.
Off topic, but Bradley (and Karen) has an interesting podcast about free software legal issues called “free as in freedom”
Stallman has a long trail of accusations of mistreating women at MIT, as well as a long history of adopting some extremely unpleasant opinions. Many of these instances didn't get much attention until he was scrutinized for defending Minsky. Stallman and his defenders like to frame this debate in terms of a single email to a mailing list, but people associated with the FSF see it as a longer-running problem with his personal behavior. I am not comfortable repeating any of the stories about this, but they have painted a fairly consistent picture for some time now.
Finally, his return to the board came as a surprise to everyone outside the FSF board, including sister organizations like FSFE and even voting members of the FSF. Now it looks like the current FSF president is planning to step aside for Stallman to assume the presidency, all with no apology or even expressed remorse for the behavior which led to his resignation in the first place, and I think that's adding fuel to the outrage.
Finally, his return to the board came as a surprise to everyone outside the FSF board, including sister organizations like FSFE and even voting members of the FSF. Now it looks like the current FSF president is planning to step aside for Stallman to assume the presidency, all with no apology or even expressed remorse for the behavior which led to his resignation in the first place, and I think that's adding fuel to the outrage.
You're missing the miss-characterization of his words by every news media outlet on planet that continues to this day:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/red-hat-withdraws-fr...
> after a two-year hiatus due to his own highly controversial remarks about his perception of Jeffrey Epstein's victims as "entirely willing."
RMS didn't get cancelled for his words, he got cancelled for what everyone thought his words were.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/red-hat-withdraws-fr...
> after a two-year hiatus due to his own highly controversial remarks about his perception of Jeffrey Epstein's victims as "entirely willing."
RMS didn't get cancelled for his words, he got cancelled for what everyone thought his words were.
Okay. This is the excuse, not the reason right? As in, the real reason is the FSF is generally incompatible with the way in which most of these companies and organizations want to make money, and blaming Stallman is the current easy out?
How is the FSF fundamentally incompatible with how the FSF Europe, the Tor project, the Software Freedom Conservancy, ... want to make money? IMHO there's too many people who have worked a lot and deeply for Free Software goals against him to explain it as an attempt to make Free Software weaker.
If I'm being cynic, if you are a large company wanting the FSF to be less relevant, you should probably encourage them to let RMS alienate more people. To quote a recent HN comment of mine: "RMS came to speak at my university. He probably did more damage to general student perception of anything associated with the FSF than industry-ass-kissing professors did in the 3 years prior in that one day", and my impression is that the FSF is worse off to achieve its stated goals with him at the helm.
If I'm being cynic, if you are a large company wanting the FSF to be less relevant, you should probably encourage them to let RMS alienate more people. To quote a recent HN comment of mine: "RMS came to speak at my university. He probably did more damage to general student perception of anything associated with the FSF than industry-ass-kissing professors did in the 3 years prior in that one day", and my impression is that the FSF is worse off to achieve its stated goals with him at the helm.
>if you are a large company wanting the FSF to be less relevant, you should probably encourage them to let RMS alienate more people.
Perhaps they want to steer the direction of the free software movement to be more corporate friendly, i.e. get people to write software for free but none of that pesky copyleft stuff. More directly, there is an optional "or any later version" in the GPL, so if they can get the FSF to make the next version of the GPL more corporate friendly that also includes a lot of existing software (although I don't know how popular this clause is in practice).
Perhaps they want to steer the direction of the free software movement to be more corporate friendly, i.e. get people to write software for free but none of that pesky copyleft stuff. More directly, there is an optional "or any later version" in the GPL, so if they can get the FSF to make the next version of the GPL more corporate friendly that also includes a lot of existing software (although I don't know how popular this clause is in practice).
The vast majority of useful free software is already corporate funded if not MIT licensed.
Can you direct me to the thread in which you detail what Stallman did to damage "student perception of anything associated with the FSF" at your university?
I have seen Stallman speak at various universities over the years, and I have witnessed the same speech and its intrinsic message fall flat on its face at, say, Stanford, whilst receiving a rapturous response from students at Berkeley just a week later.
The prevailing student culture has much to do with how well a message is received, particularly in these politically charged and volatile times when people so easily get distracted from the message by the messenger himself, or even third-party reports regarding the messenger's past.
I have seen Stallman speak at various universities over the years, and I have witnessed the same speech and its intrinsic message fall flat on its face at, say, Stanford, whilst receiving a rapturous response from students at Berkeley just a week later.
The prevailing student culture has much to do with how well a message is received, particularly in these politically charged and volatile times when people so easily get distracted from the message by the messenger himself, or even third-party reports regarding the messenger's past.
It's a marathon, not a sprint; I'll bet the pure Streisand effect of more people even simply knowing who RMS is could likely outweigh any of this short run "alienation."
The GPL license is incredibly corporation hostile.
The GPL is not “incredibly corporation hostile”, it's a verbose legalese for “tit for tat”. You got that libre software for free? Fair enough, just give back what you added to it.
I'm not sure how that addresses anything in my comment, which is entirely about how non-corporate entities perceive him?
> This is the excuse, not the reason right? As in, the real reason is the FSF is generally incompatible with the way in which most of these companies and organizations want to make money, and blaming Stallman is the current easy out?
Yes, that's why plenty of nonprofits orgs and their leadership have also complained about the same things, and why an FSF board member resigned over it. All the complaints about Stallman are false-flag objections by people with a covert agenda of making money undermining software freedom.
That's much more likely than that Stallman, like so many other prominent figures in a number of fields, is genuinely being impacted by society’s reduced tolerance when it comes to broad subject of sexual harassment.
Yes, that's why plenty of nonprofits orgs and their leadership have also complained about the same things, and why an FSF board member resigned over it. All the complaints about Stallman are false-flag objections by people with a covert agenda of making money undermining software freedom.
That's much more likely than that Stallman, like so many other prominent figures in a number of fields, is genuinely being impacted by society’s reduced tolerance when it comes to broad subject of sexual harassment.
I'm not saying all those people are lying or false-flagging, I'm saying there exist quite a few other parties that perhaps don't care much about harassment but would like to see his ideas suppressed, and might find this convenient and play it up.
What I absolutely will not do is presume guilt based on what might be something of a metaphorical lynch mob. I expect and require something that looks like due process, and so I'm continuing to watch how this public conversation goes.
What I absolutely will not do is presume guilt based on what might be something of a metaphorical lynch mob. I expect and require something that looks like due process, and so I'm continuing to watch how this public conversation goes.
Red Hat specifically seems quite compatible with the FSF.
[deleted]
They did not even give the FSF time to react, huh?
All very convenient for Red Hat/IBM.
I personally agree that putting rms back into place was maybe not the best move. But why is he not even allowed to participate at all? Why not aim for a compromise?
I am very confused by the sheer toxicity of this whole reaction and it feels more like the big players were just waiting for an excuse to finally openly bash the FSF.
I personally agree that putting rms back into place was maybe not the best move. But why is he not even allowed to participate at all? Why not aim for a compromise?
I am very confused by the sheer toxicity of this whole reaction and it feels more like the big players were just waiting for an excuse to finally openly bash the FSF.
Just as the FSF didn't give LibrePlanets top sponsor (RedHat) or projects that had clearly indicated they wouldn't want to participate if RMS was involved (Tor) any headsup they were going to use LibrePlanet to announce RMS' return? It's not like the pushback is a sudden unexpected event, so additionally blindsiding others with it probably doesn't help.
They didn't even inform the organizers of LibrePlanet this was happening. The whole thing is extremely poorly-handled.
The big players are not threatened by the FSF. The FSF is background noise to paying customers. There's nothing to gain or lose by bashing or not bashing.
Sometimes you have to take at face value that Red Hat is made of people, who can have principles and act according to them.
Disclosure: I work for VMware, ostensibly a mortal enemy, and they are so far on the correct side of history here that I'd be proud to wear the crimson fedora today.
Sometimes you have to take at face value that Red Hat is made of people, who can have principles and act according to them.
Disclosure: I work for VMware, ostensibly a mortal enemy, and they are so far on the correct side of history here that I'd be proud to wear the crimson fedora today.
why do you have the feeling that the company you work fork and its competitor are mortal enemies to you ? It's just a job to make money or humm more money at the end of the day, isn't it?
Hence "ostensibly".
The point is to force the FSF to eject Stallman again and be totally disrupted in the resulting split of their supporters. Then RH can step in and pick up the pieces.
Edit: I hope they don't give in to the howling mob.
Edit: I hope they don't give in to the howling mob.
Exactly what I thought would happen. Not only was reinstalling Stallman going to alienate institutional supporters, it's also really a slap in the face of a lot of newer free software supporters, young women in particular given Stallman's past behaviour and comments.
Also very interesting to see the difference in commentary compared to the reddit admin fiasco.
Also very interesting to see the difference in commentary compared to the reddit admin fiasco.
I don't think the leader of the FSF should be making as many public comments about unrelated matters as Stallman has so I don't think he should be reinstated, but I also find that many of his comments are wrongfully interpreted. Logically and administratively, if quite a few of those ideas were followed through with we'd be better off as a society.
Have you read them? Every single one of them is freedom bent.
Have you read them? Every single one of them is freedom bent.
Why should "the leader of the FSF" not make "as many public comments about unrelated matters as Stallman"?
This seems to suggest that a leadership role results or should result, ipso facto, in a reduction of its occupier's freedom of speech.
I don't follow that rationale at all, which isn't to say that I don't acknowledge that such comments can and obviously do in some cases lead to public distraction from the actual work of said leader, shifting the focus to the leader's perceived identity and moral fortitude.
That's a lamentable development to be sure, but to advocate abstention from public discourse as a precaution against the danger of becoming a distraction from the cause you advocate seems to be a clear case of blaming the victim. Stallman is not at fault here.
This seems to suggest that a leadership role results or should result, ipso facto, in a reduction of its occupier's freedom of speech.
I don't follow that rationale at all, which isn't to say that I don't acknowledge that such comments can and obviously do in some cases lead to public distraction from the actual work of said leader, shifting the focus to the leader's perceived identity and moral fortitude.
That's a lamentable development to be sure, but to advocate abstention from public discourse as a precaution against the danger of becoming a distraction from the cause you advocate seems to be a clear case of blaming the victim. Stallman is not at fault here.
Whether you follow the rationale doesn't matter at all. The moment you become a public figure that leads an organization people will take a microscope to your life, using anything they can find as substance for juicy stories or their own agenda. It's not just Stallman. Pick any political figure. With the power and trust comes a target on your back. This is self-evident if you've see the news at any point in time in your life.
It sucks but it doesn't make it any less true.
It sucks but it doesn't make it any less true.
So how many young women did they attract vs how many old men they have alienated? Any numbers?
I only have limited perspective, but the people I know who are really interested in free software (including most notably my girlfriend) are really not interested in the other aspects or RMS or anyone else's politics, in relation to FOSS. There is this perception that people are sitting around saying "oh, well I like free software, but thay movement is dominated my mysoginists or whatever, there's no place for me". I don't buy that. Positive contributors are drawn to FSF over free software advocacy. Other personal/ personality issues only matter to most people when they are made so distracting they can't be ignored, and that just breeds apathy.
So tldr, I agree with you, this may be appeasing people who have just taken an interest to make trouble, and sponsors that dont want to get involved, but it is completely alienating people actually interested in free software.
So tldr, I agree with you, this may be appeasing people who have just taken an interest to make trouble, and sponsors that dont want to get involved, but it is completely alienating people actually interested in free software.
This is overkill. Stallman is not accused of doing anything illegal. He just expressed an unpopular opinion.
Get angry about something real, like Georgia voting to keep poor people from voting.
Get angry about something real, like Georgia voting to keep poor people from voting.
This is whataboutism. We're perfectly capable of being angry about more than one thing at a time.
I no longer see any occupy-wall-street anger. Quite convenient and safe for multi-nationals to feign Victorian moral outrage instead.
Black Lives Matter was diverted into irrelevance in the same way. Lots of noise about statutes and names, not so much about Federal prosecution of cops and stronger civilian review boards.
Some people will always lose interest after a while. It doesn't mean everyone did. https://twitter.com/UR_Ninja is still reporting every day for example. You can learn from them about some changes around qualified immunity that were implemented. If you don't want it to disappear, spread the word.
Stallman has also been accused of sexual harassment, unwanted physical contact and verbal harassment for years. But his supporters dismiss every such report as a lie made up by Marxist feminist agitators because that sort of thing is harder to defend than "unpopular opinions."
This isn't about a single event. RMS has been alienating even his strongest supporters for decades. The tone of his return to the FSF board made it clear that he still hasn't learned why and isn't interested in learning.
What was the opinion?
Several. They are quoted in some detail in the open letter. Some are patently silly, such as disagreeing with the use of "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun, since he simply prefers other alternatives and has indeed been attentive to that problem since before it hit the mainstream in recent years.
I guess the most unpopular ones are his comments regarding relationships with minors... Regardless of strongly disagreeing with him, I lean towards freedom of speech on this one.
EDIT: I also must say I haven't read his comments in full, so it's possible he said things about this which I'm not aware of.
I guess the most unpopular ones are his comments regarding relationships with minors... Regardless of strongly disagreeing with him, I lean towards freedom of speech on this one.
EDIT: I also must say I haven't read his comments in full, so it's possible he said things about this which I'm not aware of.
> I guess the most unpopular ones are his comments regarding relationships with minors...
To which he recently added that he changed his minds after discussing about it with unspecified people.
To which he recently added that he changed his minds after discussing about it with unspecified people.
> In fact, RMS' views and statements posted on stallman.org about sexual morality escalated for the worse over the last few years.
-- Bradley Kuhn (at-the-time FSF board member), http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html
On the original blog, every word in that sentence is a link to a different post on stallman.org
-- Bradley Kuhn (at-the-time FSF board member), http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html
On the original blog, every word in that sentence is a link to a different post on stallman.org
He's said: I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.
He regretted saying it later, because he misunderstood the concept of grooming.
He regretted saying it later, because he misunderstood the concept of grooming.
Red Hat isn't donating money to Georgia.
fake news, show us proof, don't just believe what you hear. it's still easier to vote in GA than TX, which doesn't allow no-excuse absentee ballots. is getting a free ID such a burden?
Well, I just made a small donation because of his return.
We all get to have separate opinions.
We all get to have separate opinions.
My opinion of Stallman aside, this appears to confirm my belief that Red Hat has strayed from the path.
I think I'll write a blog post about why I feel this way.
I think I'll write a blog post about why I feel this way.
Stallman is a skeevy person, but he's been right about all the bullshit big tech would do.
Skeevy people shouldn't serve on boards, there's not one person alone in a void that knows how shitty big tech is
Ah yes, the financial suffocation move. Very tactical. /s
For Red Hat to choose a side wasn't really the smartest move especially also calling for the whole FSF board to resign for the sake of 'diversity and inclusion'.
I mean, Red Hat going to IBM already meaning it was on the way out. Probably better off anyway.
For Red Hat to choose a side wasn't really the smartest move especially also calling for the whole FSF board to resign for the sake of 'diversity and inclusion'.
I mean, Red Hat going to IBM already meaning it was on the way out. Probably better off anyway.
Semi-serious question: diversity is meant only in respect to genders and colors but not in opinions?
> CTO Chris Wright tweeted overnight: "I am really outraged by FSF's decision to reinstate RMS. At a moment in time where diversity and inclusion awareness is growing, this is a step backwards."
What does "diversity and inclusion" have to do with Stallman returning? Is the Wokeist subtext here that "we don't need yet another white male" on the board?
RMS is the reason most of these people have the jobs they have. He is very far from being "yet another" anything. As long as RMS has done his best to correct any mistakes, they should be extremely grateful he is willing to return.
Red Hat seems more and more out of touch with Free Software and Open Source.
What does "diversity and inclusion" have to do with Stallman returning? Is the Wokeist subtext here that "we don't need yet another white male" on the board?
RMS is the reason most of these people have the jobs they have. He is very far from being "yet another" anything. As long as RMS has done his best to correct any mistakes, they should be extremely grateful he is willing to return.
Red Hat seems more and more out of touch with Free Software and Open Source.
In woke speak, they're implying that because he said something "problematic" his presence may make certain people feel "unsafe", thereby harming "diversity and inclusion".
They don't have any idea if Stallman has made any changes during his year in the wilderness, and they don't care. They just want him out, because it weakens the FSF and the Free Software/GPL movement.
Edit: weakens the FSF if Stallman is gone, that is.
Edit: weakens the FSF if Stallman is gone, that is.
> What does "diversity and inclusion" have to do with Stallman returning?
It’s very obviously because he makes women uncomfortable. This isn’t really a woke thing. I love crazy woke people drama as much as any other techbro, but this is a big stretch.
It’s very obviously because he makes women uncomfortable. This isn’t really a woke thing. I love crazy woke people drama as much as any other techbro, but this is a big stretch.
So what has Richard Stallman done? I get that generally he's a bit of an unpleasant person but is there an actual reason?
Stallman said [1]:
The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:
“deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one
of Epstein’s victims [2])”
The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault”
is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation:
taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it
as Y, which is much worse than X.
The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference
reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem.
(See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed.)
Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence,
in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
Only that they had sex.
We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is
that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was
being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to
conceal that from most of his associates.
I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it
is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with
a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.
Computer scientist Richard Stallman, who defended Jeffrey Epstein,
resigns from MIT CSAIL and the Free Software Foundation
I want to respond to the misleading media coverage of messages I
posted about Marvin Minsky's association with Jeffrey Epstein.
The coverage totally mischaracterised my statements.
Headlines say that I defended Epstein. Nothing could be further
from the truth. I've called him a "serial rapist", and said he
deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended
him — and other inaccurate claims — and feel a real hurt because
of what they believe I said.
I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding.
He also said:
“I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
Source: https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
He is defending a 73 year old who had sex with a 17 year old. He doesn't know the 17 yo in the situation, is calling her a part of a harem and saying that it's not "really rape" even though legally it is. All this in a mailing list containing undergrad students who are of that age.
Source: https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
He is defending a 73 year old who had sex with a 17 year old. He doesn't know the 17 yo in the situation, is calling her a part of a harem and saying that it's not "really rape" even though legally it is. All this in a mailing list containing undergrad students who are of that age.
Remember that IBM owns Red Hat. So really this should read 'IBM Pulls Free Software Funding over Richard Stallman's Return." The corrected headline reveals a possible hidden agenda.
No more RedHat for my organization, then.
Many people are far too quick to label RMS as an X, Y and Z. He's just a person who has political views. Everyone get over yourselves.
Funny, I just started playing around with BSD on my servers this month, thanks for even more motivation to do so RedHat.
HN runs on FreeBSD, start there :)
They’ve always wanted to. This announcement gives them a graceful exit.
I'm close to the point where I'd recommend IBM to revive AIX and devote all resources to that. /s
This is another power grab by RedHat, which has been infiltrating many open source projects in the past decade.
Their representatives are dominant and operate in groups. If you contradict them even on technical matters, they'll remember for years to come and make your life difficult.
RedHat has been a net harm for several projects, this is another political move to grab even more power.
This is another power grab by RedHat, which has been infiltrating many open source projects in the past decade.
Their representatives are dominant and operate in groups. If you contradict them even on technical matters, they'll remember for years to come and make your life difficult.
RedHat has been a net harm for several projects, this is another political move to grab even more power.
> this is another political move to grab even more power.
What power? The FSF is decrepit and its influence long spent.
What power? The FSF is decrepit and its influence long spent.
Ok, I somewhat agree. But apparently enough influence for RedHat to donate until now.
In general I think that dragging other issues like "Stallman should have pushed the AGPL earlier" as a justification for calling for his second resignation is not fair (not attacking you here, but people on the web who did that).
These issues have been out there for decades and could have been brought up much earlier.
I also find it immensely hypocritical to see members of old-style distributions piling on Stallman now. Apart from RedHat I saw a high ranking SuSE person who got rich off other people's GPL software signing the anti-RMS petition.
These people have known exactly what exploratory and non-mainstream views Stallman expoused (held might even be too strong).
All of a sudden the "see the light" and throw him under the bus.
In general I think that dragging other issues like "Stallman should have pushed the AGPL earlier" as a justification for calling for his second resignation is not fair (not attacking you here, but people on the web who did that).
These issues have been out there for decades and could have been brought up much earlier.
I also find it immensely hypocritical to see members of old-style distributions piling on Stallman now. Apart from RedHat I saw a high ranking SuSE person who got rich off other people's GPL software signing the anti-RMS petition.
These people have known exactly what exploratory and non-mainstream views Stallman expoused (held might even be too strong).
All of a sudden the "see the light" and throw him under the bus.
The way that some tech millionaires are now queuing up to sacrifice Stallman after having become rich beyond their wildest dreams on the back of his pioneering work reminds me of all those former Facebook executives and prominents we see in mainstream social media documentaries, who are now, after having secure their financial future, at pains to express remorse for the monster they designed and created. Yet, no-one ever feels bad enough to donate all of their blood money to a charitable cause.
Talk is cheap.
Talk is cheap.
I have long waited for a Pure GNU OS. Redhat's, oops sorry, IBM's move gives more motivation to use Guix.
Unfortunately Guix also want Stallman out: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...
The entire free software community seems to have turned on their own founder - I don't think there's anyone sane left.
The entire free software community seems to have turned on their own founder - I don't think there's anyone sane left.
Hmm, this just makes RockyLinux and the other CentOS forks look better.
[deleted]
notananthem(3)
bbanyc(5)
notananthem(1)
> But a number of the ideas for which Richard Stallman has been attacked and punished are ideas that I as a feminist advocate of human rights find completely correct and positive from the perspective of women’s equality and dignity!
https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web