What matters to me is the specific language of the license and the enforcement or non-enforcement of it.
I think the GPL licenses that exist can be quite useful for people who choose them.
However, they are not perfect for everyone. My assumption is that to make progress for those groups, you need some substantive change to the license as well as enforcement strategies.
And, whether it's Stallman or anyone else, you are going to get very little support for really substantive changes to GPL or FSF.
That's why from my perspective, this is mainly an irrelevant political struggle which is not actually going to push software freedom or anything forward, regardless of the outcome.
I think you need people who deeply understand the purpose of copyleft licenses and also really deeply understand new technologies and paradigms such as distributed public computing and ledgers. And it's not going to be easy to improve upon the licenses and other things we already have.
But in any case the idea that some particular individual is so important (or problematic) in how we organize all of our software business makes no sense to me.
Does that not miss the point of decades of unacceptable behavior by RMS, harassing women in person, etc., and the email thing just being the straw that broke the camel's back?
It is a response to (among other things) "An open letter to remove Richard M. Stallman from all leadership positions"[1]. This letter emphasised Stallman's beliefs over his behaviour. So if Stallman's behaviour was "the point", then the authors of the letter failed to make it. They could have focused on his behaviour instead and have an honest discussion. They didn't.
First sentence of the annex: RMS has a history of mistreating women and making them feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and unwelcome. For incidents relating to RMS and MIT, please see 0.
2. This is the only sentence in the annex about it. The rest of it focuses again on beliefs.
Also, I didn't write it wasn't mentioned at all. However, that amounts to a marginal note, suggesting it's just a supplementary supporting point, but not the main issue. The main, damning, issue, according to this letter, are Stallman's beliefs.
Then make him answer for the harassment, not for his views.
When you make a case against a burglar, you don't base it on his views on capitalism and communism. You'd be laughed out of court. You base it on his act of burglary, with evidence/witnesses.
As far as the letter is concerned, it seems that its authors aren't really concerned with harassment. It's those other issues that stir real passion in them.
That the authors are more concerned with this or that isn't the point. Mr Stallman is being rejected _pour l'ensemble de son oeuvre_ and his behaviour at MIT is entirely sufficient to shun him.
> That the authors are more concerned with this or that isn't the point.
It is the point of the article. Author of the article didn't object to rejecting Stallman, and neither did I. They objected to doing it on the grounds of his beliefs and gave a wider perspective of the problem. If it was the first time something like that happened, I could say that it sets a dangerous precedent. Alas, we're long past precedent, we're just going deeper.
To be clear, there were other letters calling for Stallman's removal, such as the one from Debian, which don't have that flaw.
This article isn't about Stallman. It is about bigotry.
Has he been convicted for the crime of harassment? There is a thing called the courts of law, due process.
You don’t get to form a mob and condemn people you don’t like like that.
This. This is a really well put, well thought out, non polarizing piece of writing. I have had the pleasure of seeing a few of Michael Meeks’ presentations about LibreOffice (at a few FoSDEMs). Thanks for being you + thanks for writing something that bridges instead of divides, Michael!
The issue is not RMS's beliefs as such. It's how he chooses to communicate them.
There's no doubt that there are many people in positions of power with beliefs that many would find reprehensible. But most of them have the sense not to make those beliefs public.
Of course one can make the argument that RMS can't help it, it's just his personality/ disability (as Bruce Perens recently argued), but that infantilizes RMS and implies he's simply incapable of learning from his mistakes.
But he is capable of such learning, as his recent presumably coerced "apology" shows. He needs more of that to develop into a mature adult person.
So basically he is allowed to hold heretical beliefs, as long as he hides them? I'm not sure that's a great improvement over Soviet times.
EDIT:
I've always disliked him immensely as a matter of personal preference, but for all I care he should be able to be an outspoken communist nazi as long as he makes sensible decisions in his work capacity.
My opinion is the opposite of yours - I like RMS immensely, but believe he's no longer fit to represent free software. The article that changed my mind [1] stated that, in short, making public statements on controversial topics unrelated to free software is harmful to the FSF's mission, regardless of how correct those statements may be.
It seems that this statement by Stallman is what upsets him the most:
"Sexual assault: this term is so broad that using it is misleading. The term includes rape, groping, sexual harassment, and other acts.
These acts are not merely different in degree. They are different in kind. Rape is a grave crime. Being groped is unpleasant but not as grave as robbery. Sexual harassment is a not an action at all, but rather a pattern of actions that constitutes economic unfairness. How can it make sense to group these behaviors things together?
It never makes sense. News articles, studies, and laws should avoid that term."
That doesn't seem very controversial or upsetting, and even when he does say things I think are upsetting, how is that related to him promoting free software? As long as he obeys the laws I don't care if he would actually like to change them.
The greater questions is: Why exactly do we need everyone to agree with our own morals? Isn't that the exact opposite of democracy?
Especially in the US, which is a melting pot of people from various cultures, isn't the whole point that people should be able to have whatever morals they want, but everyone needs to obey the laws, and then every few years people vote on what the rules should be?
Ideologically, I agree with you, and passionately agree with that statement on the "sexual assault" term.
> and even when he does say things I think are upsetting, how is that related to him promoting free software?
The sad fact is many people are unable (and sometimes unwilling) to separate a cause from its proponents. Every (misquoted) controversial statement he makes is ammo for opponents of free software to tar the entire movement with.
I agree, his opinions on unrelated topics shouldn't matter, and we should strive to progress society to a level where they don't, but we're not there yet. We're not even close, if we're even moving in the right direction.
Whatever his beliefs that is no reason to cancel, shame or ostracize someone. He is harmless and never incited violence or hate.
People nowadays have a really low threshold for what is acceptable, I think that says more about them then RMS or anyone else that has been outed and shamed.
Is it really? I read the email chain, it was totally reasonable. He made good points regarding the mental image of assault.
I for one don’t want people to discuss the meaning of rape but he had a perspective that was shared in a civil manner.
Someone else of course jumped immediately to "when this leaks it will reflect poorly on us, ...".
Yeah, maybe if you are more interested in looking good than having an intellectually honest conversation you shouldn’t be allowed in academia.
Doesn't this comment belie your earlier one that your issue is not with his beliefs (which you took effort to emphasize by repeating it)?
Is your stated principle the one you actually stand on, or is it a more convenient justification -- we'll say that our reasons are X, because X is the most defensible/unassailable, but our actual reasoning is Y?
It's not "my solution." It's an observation about what actually happens in the world, in practice.
One important aspect of what I described is that it requires an awareness of when one's beliefs are out of line with widely accepted positions. That awareness helps avoid pointless and unnecessary conflict, and may also cause
one to reconsider the specifics of one's beliefs. Lacking that awareness is likely to lead to trouble.
When someone finds themselves defending child predators, it suggest that they are severely lacking in that kind of self-awareness. Social shaming in that situation is not unreasonable, and may help the person improve their understanding of how their beliefs fit into the world.
All of what you've said could apply to every controversial position to ever exist. These include racial equality, women's rights, homosexuality, democracy, wearing shoes inside the house, etc. It is both patronizing and factually incorrect to claim that speaking one's mind is to be equated with lack of awareness and pointless conflict. Who are you or anyone else to determine what's pointless? Conflict can arise from any reason at all even the most irrational.
It isn't anyone's obligation to be the broker or bearer of a false dogma for society's sake. There's no reason to reconsider a view until proof to the contrary is presented by the claimant.
Any social stigma based on such a premise is only a reflection of its insular beliefs - nay, delusions - held onto without examination or scrutiny. Shaming is the only the weapon left to people whose view of themselves and the world around them depends on the sanctity of an ideological house of cards. Reasonable people don't need hokum like shaming to defeat an argument. It's only necessary for the unreasonable. A society dependent on shaming is itself lacking in awareness. It can't hope to understand world beyond itself. Equating beliefs that please merely general society and with beliefs that fit into the world is a false premise. The world is a much bigger and unconventional place than most will accept.
Minsky's own wife testified that she was with him during the visit to Epstein's island and nothing of the sort happened.
Of course, facts mean nothing to the mob. You see it here in this very thread (comments marking RMS as a "serial harasser" when that's pure fiction at best and malicious slander at worst).
The ideology and mental models behind cancel culture are so poisonous and hostile to open exchange of ideas that they need to be rooted out and vehemently exposed wherever encountered.
Your account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that—regardless of what ideology they're battling for or against—because it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
Clearly in this case it depends on what was said. I can't believe people are standing up to say RMS deserves a blank check to speak for the FSF after his past comments.
Such as that exploitation of underage girls by much older adults is ok?
If RMS had something important to say here, the overall response would be different. But he doesn't. He's just an immature creep who's been coddled too much his whole life.
