LWN.net News from the source
Meanwhile, a group of maintainers for specific GNU projects has posted a joint statement calling for new leadership at GNU. "We believe that Richard Stallman cannot represent all of GNU. We think it is now time for GNU maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the project. The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom."
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 16:16 UTC (Mon) by frostsnow (subscriber, #114957) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 16:36 UTC (Mon) by aespinoza (subscriber, #125484) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 17:21 UTC (Mon) by jrigg (guest, #30848) [Link]
I agree. Those developers are presumably free to form their own organisation outside of GNU, so why not do that?
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 19:51 UTC (Mon) by flussence (subscriber, #85566) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 23:32 UTC (Mon) by scientes (subscriber, #83068) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 17:18 UTC (Mon) by dragonquest (subscriber, #131210) [Link]
I understand why organizations like a donor funded university might want to distance itself from controversy, but the GNU project?!? A purely technical, libre project whose participants would have doubtlessly read about the contributions of RMS to the movement!
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 17:27 UTC (Mon) by dkg (subscriber, #55359) [Link]
I think Richard would disagree with you when you claim that the GNU project is "purely technical".
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 17:39 UTC (Mon) by dragonquest (subscriber, #131210) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 17:26 UTC (Mon) by dkg (subscriber, #55359) [Link]
I think you're using "political agitator" to indicate your disapproval. With all due respect, Richard himself is undoubtably a political agitator. So I think what you're saying is that you think that your own politics are more aligned with Richard's politics than with the politics of people who want a more egalitarian and welcoming leadership of a foundational free software umbrella project.
That's a fine thing to think (even though some of us might disagree with you), but it'd be better to say it directly rather than weirdly-inapplicable name-calling.
We all owe Richard a tremendous debt of gratitude for his insight, understanding and courage in formalizing the larger goals of the free software project. That doesn't mean that his skills as a communicator and public figure are up for the task today, and it definitely doesn't mean that we need him to act as a leader of any particular software development effort.
You wrote:
I don't trust political agitators to defend my Freedom when it conflicts with their political ideology
It might be worth thinking about how this same sentence might sound coming from people who have been traditionally sidelined, dismissed, mocked, or ignored by our community. For a volunteer community, we've driven lots of people away by not taking them seriously as peers, contributors, and leaders -- by not being trustworthy in the same way that you're concerned about. Richard has persistently, willfully ignored the impact of his sexist behavior (and dismissal of other contributors when they disagree with him). Can you see why this is might be an indicator that a leadership role isn't the right role for him if we want a healthy, growing, vibrant community that will defend everyone's Freedoms?
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 22:12 UTC (Mon) by frostsnow (subscriber, #114957) [Link]
>So I think what you're saying is that you think that your own politics are more aligned with Richard's politics than with the politics of people who want a more egalitarian and welcoming leadership of a foundational free software umbrella project.
I'm going to divide this notion of "want" which you brought up into three separate categories: What people *say* they want, what people *think* they want, and what people *actually* want. That many of these agitators *think* they want a more egalitarian and welcoming leadership seems apparent, but that they *actually* want it is not apparent to me, especially given that their collective action here has only been the continued destruction of a man's career. I find it a malevolent and unwelcoming sight.
>We all owe Richard a tremendous debt of gratitude for his insight, understanding and courage in formalizing the larger goals of the free software project. That doesn't mean that his skills as a communicator and public figure are up for the task today, and it definitely doesn't mean that we need him to act as a leader of any particular software development effort.
What you have said here doesn't mean much of anything, as you have failed to state your opinion but instead spoken in broad, generalized terms without explicitly committing to anything. I have already stated that I trust RMS more than the agitators. That one of them could produce a better Free Software leader than RMS is exactly what I have yet to be convinced of.
>It might be worth thinking about how this same sentence might sound coming from people who have been traditionally sidelined, dismissed, mocked, or ignored by our community. For a volunteer community, we've driven lots of people away by not taking them seriously as peers, contributors, and leaders -- by not being trustworthy in the same way that you're concerned about.
>we've driven lots of people away...
Speak only for yourself here, please. If these people wish to contribute then they are welcome to do so of their own accord.
>Richard has persistently, willfully ignored the impact of his sexist behavior (and dismissal of other contributors when they disagree with him). Can you see why this is might be an indicator that a leadership role isn't the right role for him if we want a healthy, growing, vibrant community that will defend everyone's Freedoms?
His leadership role was created and earned by his dedication to the cause of Free Software. I am not convinced that any of these agitators are both able and willing to bear that burden.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 23:16 UTC (Mon) by dkg (subscriber, #55359) [Link]
Interesting that you see this as the destruction of a man's career, when all people are asking for is for him to be removed from a position of leadership. Also, interesting that you don't seem to think that Richard bears any responsibility for ways that his behavior has negatively impacted the community. What should the consequences be for a would-be leader who drives people away from a project? Perhaps it's not just the non-RMS "agitators" who are harming Richard's career?
Also interesting that you don't seem to consider the careers of those who have been harmed by Richard's behavior. I grant that those careers can't all be characterized as "a man's career" though.
> Speak only for yourself here, please. If these people wish to contribute then they are welcome to do so of their own accord.
Sorry, I'm not buying this line. You aren't willing to hear it from me (someone within the free software community already) because it's not "for myself", but you're also not willing to hear it from others currently "on the outside" because they're "political agitators". This is a pretty dubious rhetorical position.
And, rhetoric aside, it is the responsibility of people who have power in a situation to act toward righting injustices that they see, whether they are personally, directly affected by them or not. While I don't claim to have a lot of power, I can at least use my contributions to this community to push it the direction that I think it should go in. For me, that's toward justice, openness, caring, mutual aid, and an expanded circle of compassion. I don't believe in driving people away just because their skin isn't thick enough to withstand the abuse.
> you have failed to state your opinion but instead spoken in broad, generalized terms without explicitly committing to anything.
I've stated my opinion repeatedly elsewhere, but I was trying to give you a chance to see why your arguments are less than convincing in this discussion. But just in case it needs spelling out:
Richard Stallman inspired me for much of the free-software-related work that I do in my life. It's also clear that he has significant difficulty in understanding how his behavior affects other people, or in seeing things from other people's perspectives. Smurf (below) rightly calls this a "#whatmeworry" attitude towards matters of systemic marginalization. That's something particularly easy for white men to adopt as they've never faced the brunt of those particular forms of oppression. Note that this doesn't mean that Richard has always had an easy time of things. It's clear that he has not! But being casually ostracized and dismissed for being, say, neurodiverse or stubborn or downright weird, doesn't prevent someone from casually ostracizing or dismissing people for other characteristics either. And worse, when he makes a mistake (like we all do), Richard seems particularly unable to sincerely apologize for it, let alone to act to make amends.
Richard's disregard (whether thoughtless or deliberate) for other people's perspectives makes it very easy for him to alienate a lot of people from what should be a growing movement. His departure from his position of leadership at the FSF was long overdue (I asked him personally to step down due to his behavior over a year ago, long before his Minsky/Epstein remarks, and I should have done that earlier). As for the GNU project, I'm not a GNU developer, so I can't say what the right decision for that project is. But I can tell you that when I've thought about contributing more directly to the GNU project in the past, the thought of placing myself squarely in an area that Richard seems to consider his personal fiefdom was one of the things that convinced me I would rather use my limited time elsewhere.
Just having Richard step down from GNU probably wouldn't change any minds of people who have stayed away from the project due to Richard's behavior, of course. He's been there long enough that his influences, good and bad, will long outlast him. And of course this is not just about Richard, but about the culture of the projects we all work on together. What I hope for the GNU project (and for the FSF, for that matter) is that they keep their commitment to Richard's good influences (strong commitment to software freedom, explicitly political goals for the project) and that they work actively toward repairing the harms that habits and behaviors like his have done to the project's overall health, and the people who care about it. We need to actively build up the community that should surround such an important piece of work. That takes commitment and effort that has been lacking from the GNU project thus far. I hope that changes, whether Richard stays involved or not.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 0:28 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
"Removing him from a position of leadership" _is_ the destruction of his career.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 1:03 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 1:40 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
Tear down the man first, the ideals he promoted will follow.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 1:50 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 2:17 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
Every mention of RMS outside of "true believer" circles will end up with "disgraced" in the same sentence. Every time something he wrote gets cited to support an argument why Free Software is a GoodThing(tm), it will get countered with "why should we trust anything that kiddie-raper-apologist and serial-discomforter-of-women had to say?" Especially in conservative corporate contexts where the mear appearance of impropriety gets associations dropped like hot potatoes?
So, yes, RMS stepping down from the FSF was utterly necessary if the FSF was to survive. It's probable that stepping down from GNU will also become necessary. Nobody's going to hire him as a speaker (that whole "disgraced" thing). I'm having a hard time seeing what avenues he has left to support himself. Wal*Mart greeter?
Sure, there's good arguments to be made that RMS should have passed the Free Software leadership torch to someone(s) else. But that ship has sailed, and RMS is being summarily ejected and everyone that is saying so much as "hold on, slow up" is getting actively tarred with the same "kiddie-raper-apologist-apologist" brush. What I find dismaying here is just how much of the Free Software "community" is piling on, and in the process, actively helping the barbarians dismantle the foundations of the entire Free Software movement.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 2:38 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 2:58 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
While I hope you are correct (and in the long run, I think you will be), in the shorter term this will be additional ammunition for those who seek to undermine support for free software. (It was already a bit of an uphill battle, this just makes it harder...)
Now if you'd said "open source" instead of "free software" I'd agree without reservation, because from that perspective RMS has long been irrelevant except perhaps as a boogeyman.
> Indeed, if the Free Software movement to this day depended on Stallman to that extent, then his career truly would have been a failure.
...Folks who change the world rarely end up with a good personal outcome for their efforts.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 2:50 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder. Many of the ancient Greeks were as well. We'd do well to ignore their takes on matters of slavery. That doesn't mean their other views on topics are useless. Indeed, we'd probably have to ignore anything older than some number of years all throughout history (the acceleration of things today means it is finally closing in on the span of a career instead of waiting until the offenders are long dead to collectively realize "hey, that's an awful behavior"). I still find Stallman's views on free software and even some of the politics of interest and of importance. His views on social interactions? Not worth much to me.
Sure, I'm not everyone and it's sad that so many take a one dimensional view of people (so it goes with identity politics). But isn't this reality a *reason* to remove him from the leadership role today? Just look at all the references to the foot picking video anytime discussions of his viewpoints is brought up. Bad hygeine isn't as bad as poor social behavior, but both are a distraction to the goals of these organizations (the latter being of particular importance as these are socially oriented groups). Incidentally, those who bring up such irrelevant facts as if it's some kind of argument against free software is a good litmus test for who to basically ignore in such threads.
> I'm having a hard time seeing what avenues he has left to support himself. Wal*Mart greeter?
I think you should give him more credit. He could work to improve himself and show that he has learned what has been wrong with his behavior and show that he's working towards improving it. But it's not the end of the road for him (at least as far as I'm concerned) unless he doesn't want to continue. But if anyone has the willpower to perservere through such a process, if be surprised if he didn't have it somewhere in him.
> What I find dismaying here is just how much of the Free Software "community" is piling on, and in the process, actively helping the barbarians dismantle the foundations of the entire Free Software movement.
So the free software movement is of the highest importance? If he had committed a felony, should he have been kept in because no one could replace him? I don't think so. There's obviously a line somewhere here. Personally, I think he is no longer suitable as the leader of the FSF because there *are* those who will sling mud like you say above and he's shown that his behavior in social groups was not going to improve. Debates and discussions without that clouding over it are certainly more productive.
Contrast this with Linus who realized he had an issue with his communication and behavior and worked to resolve it. I've not seen a reduction of kernel code quality since then as many have feared. Recognizing and addressing the problems with his behavior could have avoided a lot of the fallout here, but it never happened. There's no reason for me to think that such improvements would have interfered with his contributions to the free software movement (other than the time spent on them).
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 3:31 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
The rate of societal change has greatly accelerated, media has far more permanence, and is much more easily searched.
(But this is the same underlying reason that that the "beatification" process for promoting someone to sainthood traditionally took many decades -- The Church had to wait until everyone who could credibly accuse the candidate of malfesance had died off...)
> But isn't this reality a *reason* to remove him from the leadership role today?
The harsh reality is that retaining any sort of political leadership role will do more harm than good. This probably will eventually encompass technical leadership roles as well (eg individual GNU projects)
> There's obviously a line somewhere here.
... wherever the line, he crossed it, and now it's being pulled backwards.
> But it's not the end of the road for him (at least as far as I'm concerned) unless he doesn't want to continue.
In any case, he will have to lay low for a while. (I suspect he's finding that he has fewer friends than he thought...)
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 7:13 UTC (Tue) by Psychonaut (guest, #86437) [Link]
Of course it doesn't, and you would be hard-pressed to find someone who disagrees with that assessment. However, Jefferson and the Ancient Greeks held slaves at a time when this was the societal norm, and this continued to be the societal norm for many decades (or even centuries) afterwards. They did not and could not suffer any slavery-related scandals during their lifetimes that (however irrelevantly) would have tarnished their authority on other matters. Their reputations as political and philosophical greats in their respective fields were safely cemented long ago, and are not today in any danger of collapsing even though society's attitudes have shifted rather dramatically.
Stallman, by contrast, is still alive. Rightly or wrongly, his general behaviour can still influence how others see the ethical-technological views he espouses. As its founder and its most visible and vocal representative, any scandal involving him could be used, illogically but not ineffectively, to discredit the entire free software community.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 4:13 UTC (Tue) by flussence (subscriber, #85566) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 4:08 UTC (Tue) by frostsnow (subscriber, #114957) [Link]
>Also, interesting that you don't seem to think that Richard bears any responsibility for ways that his behavior has negatively impacted the community. What should the consequences be for a would-be leader who drives people away from a project? Perhaps it's not just the non-RMS "agitators" who are harming Richard's career?
A better question would be *who* has the authority to enforce consequences for his behavior? What authority, both moral & legal, do they have?
>Also interesting that you don't seem to consider the careers of those who have been harmed by Richard's behavior. I grant that those careers can't all be characterized as "a man's career" though.
>And, rhetoric aside, it is the responsibility of people who have power in a situation to act toward righting injustices that they see, whether they are personally, directly affected by them or not.
And those actions must be guided by a tempered humility. Not all crosses are yours to bear.
>Sorry, I'm not buying this line. You aren't willing to hear it from me (someone within the free software community already) because it's not "for myself", but you're also not willing to hear it from others currently "on the outside" because they're "political agitators". This is a pretty dubious rhetorical position.
You used the collective form "we" when you wrote "we've driven lots of people away...", and I'm not willing to let you project *your* guilt onto *me*. Speak only for yourself here.
>It's also clear that he has significant difficulty in understanding how his behavior affects other people, or in seeing things from other people's perspectives. Smurf (below) rightly calls this a "#whatmeworry" attitude towards matters of systemic marginalization. That's something particularly easy for white men to adopt as they've never faced the brunt of those particular forms of oppression.
It seems to me that the impetus, thus unstated, is a rehash of the White Man's Burden: the burden is to guide the marginalized savages towards the glorious Free Software civilization. Your belief & acceptance of this burden does not give you the moral authority to destroy other's livelihoods; if you wish to make a sacrifice for the greater good, it must be *you* making the sacrifice, not someone else.
>Note that this doesn't mean that Richard has always had an easy time of things. It's clear that he has not! But being casually ostracized and dismissed for being, say, neurodiverse or stubborn or downright weird, doesn't prevent someone from casually ostracizing or dismissing people for other characteristics either. And worse, when he makes a mistake (like we all do), Richard seems particularly unable to sincerely apologize for it, let alone to act to make amends.
Or he doesn't share all of your moral values and thus does not feel sorry for all of the actions which you think he should feel sorry for. Expecting him to follow *your* moral values is ridiculous.
>Richard's disregard (whether thoughtless or deliberate) for other people's perspectives makes it very easy for him to alienate a lot of people from what should be a growing movement. His departure from his position of leadership at the FSF was long overdue (I asked him personally to step down due to his behavior over a year ago, long before his Minsky/Epstein remarks, and I should have done that earlier). As for the GNU project, I'm not a GNU developer, so I can't say what the right decision for that project is. But I can tell you that when I've thought about contributing more directly to the GNU project in the past, the thought of placing myself squarely in an area that Richard seems to consider his personal fiefdom was one of the things that convinced me I would rather use my limited time elsewhere.
That was a reasonable choice for you to make given your understanding of the situation.
>Just having Richard step down from GNU probably wouldn't change any minds of people who have stayed away from the project due to Richard's behavior, of course. He's been there long enough that his influences, good and bad, will long outlast him. And of course this is not just about Richard, but about the culture of the projects we all work on together. What I hope for the GNU project (and for the FSF, for that matter) is that they keep their commitment to Richard's good influences (strong commitment to software freedom, explicitly political goals for the project) and that they work actively toward repairing the harms that habits and behaviors like his have done to the project's overall health, and the people who care about it. We need to actively build up the community that should surround such an important piece of work. That takes commitment and effort that has been lacking from the GNU project thus far. I hope that changes, whether Richard stays involved or not.
I don't think that a community which takes seriously people who put forward the notion of a "sustainable pruge" (https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appe...) is healthy.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 6:17 UTC (Tue) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]
Expecting everybody else to put up with the culture of misogyny and professional denigration that his continuing disregard of personal vs. professional boundaries fosters is equally ridiculous.
Treating people the same regardless of gender (in a professional context) is not just a moral value IMHO. It's basic ethics, not to mention common sense.
You personally might be comfortable with a club where you need to leave your values (or your emotional well-being) at the door if you want to be a member, let alone a card-carrying one, but I am not.
No I don't expect RMS to follow any of my values. I assume him to be unable to, not without some professional coaching. Right now this fact is to the detriment of the GNU Project and, ultimately, his own (professional) ideals. Thus there should be consequences.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 12:43 UTC (Tue) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]
What's this, the divine right of RMS? Anyone associated with the GNU project has the right to call for him to be removed. Those with the legal authority to remove him have done so.
> Expecting him to follow *your* moral values is ridiculous.
This always starts to go down a rabbit hole for me. If there is no shared moral values, then why would it be wrong for me demand things from him according to my moral values? I don't find it ridiculous to expect leaders to follow moral values acceptable to their followers.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 9:16 UTC (Tue) by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958) [Link]
I'm not convinced this has happened a lot, or even happened at all.
You'll find a lot of people who will say "I would have contributed if…" but you can also find a lot of people who say "I would have loved to learn to play guitar" and yet never got themselves a guitar. People say a lot of things and maybe they believe them.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 9:39 UTC (Tue) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]
That's your problem. Kindly let the rest of us get on with at least trying to make our corner of the world more inclusive.
There's a reason our conferences now have codes of conduct. If the problem was just a bunch of busybodies who drummed up a problem from thin air, they'd simply be shown the door.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 0:56 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
You're assuming that they don't feel intimidated by the existing culture. In recent years, this has been articulated more and more (rather than silently accepted and, largely, ignored). The doors may be open, but if the view from outside is on a food fight (for example; not trying to make any analogies here), many people are going to pass rather than walk across the threshold.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 4:20 UTC (Tue) by frostsnow (subscriber, #114957) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 6:00 UTC (Tue) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]
You know, there's a reason why the female:male ratio in open source is significantly worse than in commercial software. I've seen numbers in the 5% vs. 25% range.
If you don't think this needs fixing, then … well, go on and keep people like RMS on the FOSS equivalent of a payroll, but don't expect those who do to shut up and bear the disregard (and worse … sometimes much worse) any longer.
Mind you, I am not slighting RMS' professional and cultural achievements; without his perseverance (not to say stubbornness, or even zealotry) we probably would not have much FOSS out there. But the same stubborn disregard of other opinions that enabled him, and inspired others, to convert his GNU ideals to a billion Linux systems out there does him, and ultimately us, a grave disservice nowadays.
NB: No, I do not think that recognizing, and ultimately-if-somewhat-belatedly-IMHO acting on, his personal shortcomings shows any disregard for his professional achievements. As others have stated: Lincoln was a slaver. The world is not black and white. People who are unable to see nuances of grey are the problem here.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 8:12 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
The others are just the modern version of a lynch mob. None of them would stand by anything if they didn’t have the comfort of the rest of the mob behind them. They don’t care about building anything, they just feel good and powerful settling scores.
¹ As opposed, for example, to a decades-old green activist, even though many would agree that climate change is one of the most critical and urgent political issues of today
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 18:48 UTC (Mon) by geofft (subscriber, #59789) [Link]
RMS has a political ideology that makes him effectively not use the web. (When he needs information from a web page, he emails a server that replies with a static copy of the page, and he checks email once a day.) That means the FSF has had a major blind spot for decades in defending the Freedom of those of us who use the web and especially dynamic web sites, which is just about all computer users. Their "solutions" like LibreJS are entirely unrealistic and have made no impact on how the web is actually developed and how it actually evolved. There could have been advocacy for better, more Freedom-respecting web services, but the FSF entirely missed the boat on it.That alone, in my mind, disqualifies him from the advocacy position. Even if everything else about him were perfect, it would leave him as only a qualified technical leader of the GNU project (in that GNU, being a UNIX-style operating system, has no inherent interaction with the web). GNU would still have needed an organizational leader keeping an eye on computing as a whole so that the project is working towards ensuring computing freedom for computing in 2020, not computing in 1980, and the FSF should be oriented towards ensuring computer freedom for everyone, not just people who are interested in running a UNIX-like operating system. (Zero credit for GNU-derived systems being usable on personal laptops at all is due to FSF/GNU, there is no GNU-derived smartphone platform, etc.)
You can still trust him to defend your Freedom if you like - but please be honest and admit that RMS, a political agitator, has let his political ideology conflict with his ability to defend our Freedom.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 4:17 UTC (Tue) by frostsnow (subscriber, #114957) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 7:30 UTC (Tue) by Psychonaut (guest, #86437) [Link]
What does this even mean? What sort of laptop-specific free software do you feel was lacking that GNU could and should have provided?
> there is no GNU-derived smartphone platform, etc.
Purism just started shipping its Librem smartphones, which run an all–free software GNU/Linux variant called PureOS. (And yes, the "GNU/" bit is intended and very relevant here; Purism have made a number of adaptations to GNU packages to get them working with their smartphone platform, and have contributed them upstream.) I believe PINE64 is also working on a smartphone that is based on GNU/Linux.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 16:39 UTC (Mon) by Koral (subscriber, #115236) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 16:53 UTC (Mon) by Koral (subscriber, #115236) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 22:25 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
(This seems to me to be an entirely wonderful idea, and I wish projects outside the auspices of GNU had the same approach more often.)
So it is quite appropriate for these maintainers not to give their current employer affiliation. That's a transient thing. Maintainership is supposed to be something longer-lasting than a mere job. :)
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 6:53 UTC (Tue) by Koral (subscriber, #115236) [Link]
Not every body buy the story of the inappropriate comment or him keeping women away from free software (!?).
Clearly here there is a new leadership group aiming for power. This is a classic pattern in social relations but every body should be in the position to understand if this is driven or not by external interests.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 8:25 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
DON'T assume that. It is *also* a classic pattern for "anyone but X". For a recent example one only has to look at Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Similarly, going back a couple of centuries, the French Revolution. The Russians meant for Afghanistan to be the former, and it turned into the latter. And the resulting fall-out as people struggle to fill the power vacuum is messy, to say the least ...
Cheers,
Sol
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 20:18 UTC (Mon) by flussence (subscriber, #85566) [Link]
It's all angry little anonymous throwaway accounts at the bottom of public website comment sections.
Interesting.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 21:28 UTC (Mon) by einar (guest, #98134) [Link]
I would call this an overgeneralization. In my case (a FOSS contributor, minor, but still contributor) to be honest I'm afraid of saying more than the little comments I left here and there (and that despite not agreeing with almost anything RMS has said over the years).
Yes, I fear the Twitter mob. Yes, I fear being ejected by the communities I am part of.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 21:44 UTC (Mon) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
You mean GNU users?
Well, I guess it's for the best. After all, we wouldn't want the *wrong kind of users* using free software.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 23:36 UTC (Mon) by scientes (subscriber, #83068) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 4:55 UTC (Tue) by cert_meter (guest, #127372) [Link]
What a disingenuous argument. When punishment for wrongthink or defending the wrong person is being misrepresented by the press, ejected from your communities and ultimately losing your job and your reputation, people tend to be cautious about leaking their identity.
I would love to comment on this under my real name, but I have a lot to lose doing so. Still I don't want the self-righteous authoritarians to think that their view is adopted or respected by actual contributors to free software, so here it is, for what it's worth.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 10:08 UTC (Tue) by dottedmag (subscriber, #18590) [Link]
This debacle made me realize the following: if a SJW comes to me or a project where I play a major role, then the following emergency plan is in action:
a) do not interact with them in any way (and lock the discussion thread if possible),
b) keep a copy of their words in case they are deleted/edited later on,
c) get the lawyer to deal with them.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 16:43 UTC (Mon) by yodermk (guest, #3803) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 17:17 UTC (Mon) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]
OK. I see where you're coming from when you say that RMS has been / is good at defending your freedom (i.e. those parts of the meaning of "freedom" that you personally care about / are affected by) and thus want him to stay on. I do respect that.
However. There's people out there whose concept of that finicky word "freedom" has nuances which RMS obviously does not stand for, and / or who have fallen victim of people disregarding those nuances – either willfully or, as RMS appears to have done, by Not Thinking. They would also like to feel welcome in the GNU Project – but simply cannot.
Many of these people, me among them, feel quite un-respected (and obviously un-represented) when you disregard our opinion on that matter. Examples on the ways RMS has done that abound and do not need being repeated, even if he's been somewhat benign compared to certain other perpetrators which I will not name.
There's a reason we're having #MeToo these days. A large part of that reason is the #WhatMeWorry attitude by people like RMS, who are quite obviously not interested in "our" feeling welcome, or indeed safe.
… and this is why I think he should resign.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 17:36 UTC (Mon) by jrigg (guest, #30848) [Link]
Is there a compelling reason for RMS to resign rather than those who disagree with him?
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 18:27 UTC (Mon) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]
Did you actually read smurf's post? The reasons were pretty clearly articulated before the final sentence.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 22:46 UTC (Mon) by jrigg (guest, #30848) [Link]
I think you missed my point. I read smurf's post. If the developers concerned no longer wish to work with RMS, there are two possible solutions: either they pressure RMS to resign or they resign themselves and set up their own organisation. The latter is not without precedent (XFree86/Xorg, NetBSD/OpenBSD etc.).
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 18:57 UTC (Mon) by nilsmeyer (✭ supporter ✭, #122604) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 20:45 UTC (Mon) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
This isn't "you're not thinking 'right', go away". It's more like "You know, we've started to recognize that there are many more people on this playground and many have been on the sideline, but fearful of playing with all of us who are already here. We've tried telling you what's wrong with your behavior, why it keeps people away, and how to improve, but you haven't been listening. We've made the determination that your continued behavior given your position is a greater detraction to the goals of the group than the benefit.".
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 23:38 UTC (Mon) by scientes (subscriber, #83068) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 0:20 UTC (Tue) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 0:42 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 12:39 UTC (Tue) by BirAdam (subscriber, #132170) [Link]
Personally, I think Stallman is a creep and I think he's detrimental to the free software movement, and I believe he should resign for the benefit of the movement and the organization. That said, forcing him out because of "feelings" or because of "opinions" is juvenile. If he has done something criminal (inflicting quantifiable damages) then prosecute. If all he has done is make people "uncomfortable" then go find/build your own playground.
Had I the time, or even enough of a care, I'd create some competitor to GNU and the FSF that was geared more toward ISC/BSD licenses and ideas, because I don't even necessarily agree with Stallman on his advocacy and philosophy, but alas I don't care enough.
What I do care about is that I feel that people are policing thought...
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 19:12 UTC (Mon) by tbrownaw (guest, #45457) [Link]
> Many of these people, me among them, feel quite un-respected (and obviously un-represented) when you disregard our opinion on that matter. Examples on the ways RMS has done that abound and do not need being repeated, even if he's been somewhat benign compared to certain other perpetrators which I will not name.
So, there exist people who like the idea of "freedom", but do not like what RMS / FSF / GNU advocate for (and happen to use the word "freedom" for).
And these people want to be part of the GNU project, despite not agreeing with what it fundamentally advocates for.
And apparently, you think that the proper answer to this is that the GNU project should abandon its goals in order to be maximally inclusive of people who do not agree with it.
I don't think it quite works that way.
> There's a reason we're having #MeToo these days. A large part of that reason is the #WhatMeWorry attitude by people like RMS, who are quite obviously not interested in "our" feeling welcome, or indeed safe.
And, I *really* don't think that a disagreement over fundamental goals is equivalent to personal abuse of power differentials as you seem to be implying it is. Unless you're suddenly talking about something other than definitions of "freedom" and what to advocate for?
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 20:51 UTC (Mon) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
At some point, GNU and FSF were going to be Stallman-less anyways since that's how life works. What would have been different in that case? Is it better for them to shut down without an absolutist like Stallman to lead? What is different now? I don't see how neither exisiting anymore would improve things with respect to software freedom.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 22:27 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
At some point, GNU and FSF were going to be Stallman-less anyways since that's how life works.Richard should have been planning for it anyway. He is, after all, retirement age, and death can strike fast (and the probability-per-year gets fairly significant at his age, alas). Whether he was or not I have no idea...
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 8:29 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Not as significant as you think.
At what age, does the probability of seeing your next birthday drop below half (ie, 50% mortality)? The answer is a lot higher than most people would think - well over half of centenarians live to 101.
Cheers,
Wol
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 5:35 UTC (Tue) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]
No of course it is not. My point is that people who actually agree on fundamental goals are driven away by behavior that exploits, or condones, abuse of power differential. We can discount reactions along the lines of "isn't the GNU project led by that guy who gives those creepy cards to women…? You *seriously* want me to join up with THOSE people??" all day … or we can admit that comments like these are a symptom a problem that's not worth putting up with, to state it bluntly.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 18:48 UTC (Mon) by tdz (subscriber, #58733) [Link]
> Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users.
But the provided link appears to be almost entirely unrelated. Citing the first sentence here:
> Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air.
So I guess RMS released a non-free program after all these years?
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 22:29 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
(I find it hard to imagine how anyone can fail to read this correctly unless they're parsing finely, trying to find a contrived reason to disagree, rather than, say, disagreeing on the statement's actual merits.)
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 6:36 UTC (Tue) by tdz (subscriber, #58733) [Link]
RMS has been a difficult person ever since. When asking him to step down, at least there should be a clear list of how he failed, instead of giving a broad and meaningless statement that fits anyone's interpretation. What has changed is that there's been a huge controversy around him recently, and apparently it's now a good opportunity to get rid of him.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 18:59 UTC (Mon) by nilsmeyer (✭ supporter ✭, #122604) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 19:22 UTC (Mon) by JMB (guest, #74439) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 20:05 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Multiple women have described cases where RMS behaved inappropriately towards them. I'm not aware of any that have crossed any sort of criminal threshold, but that's not the point - if the leader of an organisation acts in ways that alienate people for reasons other than the goals of the project, that harms the goals of the project.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 23:40 UTC (Mon) by oever (guest, #987) [Link]
Talking about computer code and licenses alienates a lot of people. Your statement is far too broad.
I've not read or heard about any incidents that RMS behaved inappropriately towards people. I've seen many threads where people ask for write-ups of these accounts, but so far no credible ones have emerged.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 23:55 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Talking about computer code and licenses is necessary to achieve the goals of the project. Asking women at technical events for dates is not.
> I've not read or heard about any incidents that RMS behaved inappropriately towards people. I've seen many threads where people ask for write-ups of these accounts, but so far no credible ones have emerged.
Can you define what you mean by "credible"?
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 0:26 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
Non-twitter, non obvious-axe-to-grind, verifiable.
Preferably an official complaint of some sort, as recorded by MIT, the FSF, or even the police.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 0:38 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Why does that add credibility?
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 1:53 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
Because it creates a hurdle (and consequences) for those acting in bad faith?
Because of an antiquated concept called "due process?"
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 2:17 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 2:35 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
Hmm, "arbitrary punishment by a more powerful entity" sure sounds like what RMS is receiving.
> An individual who reports that someone behaved inappropriately towards them shouldn't be considered less credible because they failed to participate in a formalised process
In the absence of any sort of formalized process, what exactly is a "report", and what gives it any credibility to begin with?
> and the presumption that there are only negative consequences for those acting in bad faith is demonstrably untrue.
I am intimately familiar with the negative consequences that befall those who report things in good faith -- and one of those consequences is being on the receiving end of bad-faith accusations.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 2:49 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
He resigned from the presidency of an organisation. Who's the more powerful entity here?
> In the absence of any sort of formalized process, what exactly is a "report", and what gives it any credibility to begin with?
The presumption that people don't tend to just make stuff up? False accusations certainly exist, but they're not common - it's really really really not hard to find people associated with MIT describing their experiences with RMS.
> I am intimately familiar with the negative consequences that befall those who report things in good faith -- and one of those consequences is being on the receiving end of bad-faith accusations.
Right. So you understand why rational people would choose not to go through some formal process.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 3:47 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
There's an expression for that -- "He was Resigned" (aka "Resign or we will have to publicly fire you.")
He was also kicked out by his landlord, and there's also a mob with pitchforks that led to both.
> The presumption that people don't tend to just make stuff up? False accusations certainly exist, but they're not common.
By the time I was 9 years old, I had already learned that folks do make stuff up. Systematically and Maliciously.
I've had that lesson reinforced several times over since then.
> Right. So you understand why rational people would choose not to go through some formal process.
...I also understand why that formal processes are utterly necessary, even when they don't work.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 9:59 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
It prevents allegations such as (from the original accusations on Medium):
"that mattress *and all the implications that went with it.*" where these implications are solely a product of current prejudice and (unwarranted) anger.
Regardless, I'll take that as a "no, there aren't any official complaints" for now, so feel free, as per my request ("Preferably"), to skip preferred accounts and provide some intellectually honest accusations made in good faith.
So far the only consistent complaint about rms over the decades is that he drives away people from free software by denouncing the convenience of proprietary software and by being an out-of-touch hardliner. That's regrettable but inevitable.
If someone doesn't feel that should be inevitable, they have a well-funded sandbox to play in called "open source" and there's no need to try and co-opt free software for driving popular adoption, unless one questions the free software definition and would like to change the definition by exchanging those in charge of the definition by people more amenable to one's ideas.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 6:11 UTC (Tue) by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452) [Link]
Yes. Why does that matter? Are you suggesting that people should generally avoid doing things at technical conferences that are not necessary to achieve the goals of a project?
Or that people should specifically not ask each other for a date if they happen to meet on a technical conference?
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 7:36 UTC (Tue) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]
Oh come the *censored* on! Absolutely nobody here is talking about whatever two (or more, for that matter) consenting adults decide to do when they're not on the conference floor.
Do you truly not understand the difference between asking (or worse) random strangers who happen to be of the right body shape – and normal human interaction between people who actually talk to each other and develop some sort of rapport before things get "non-professional"?
… or do you understand perfectly well but don't want to admit to it because, well, that'd imply the people who want RMS to step down are actually right?
Please enlighten us.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 23:42 UTC (Mon) by scientes (subscriber, #83068) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 23:57 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 5:06 UTC (Tue) by einar (guest, #98134) [Link]
In my country it happened way too many times (and in these cases there were even courts involved) where people (those with a high profile) had been tarred by everyone as morally corrupt, or even worse (accusations ranged from corruption to sexual assault). Some of them were found guilty, but others were found *not* guilty and did get neither an apology nor a "we were wrong" from any member of the press or (more recently: this stuff has been going on for years) the angry mob. And some of those people had their lives ruined, or in the best cases they suffered setbacks.
I don't particularly agree with anything that RMS has said (I will refrain from commenting on the man himself, since I do not know him personally), and like others have said, I don't think he should have been a monarch (in the sense that sooner or latter he should have passed the torch). I object to the treatment, and the way the whole thing has been going on, with people too eager to distance themselves to avoid being "hit" (something I've seen already in the cases I mentioned earlier). I don't think the pitchfork culture is actually going to help FOSS.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 5:47 UTC (Tue) by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452) [Link]
This is very vague. How "inappropriate" the behavior was? It really matters whether it was eating-pizza-with-fork-and-knife level inappropriate, or murder-threat level inappropriate.
Care to provide some pointers to actual description of such behavior? Otherwise, I'm sorry to say, this really sounds like the worst kind of gossip.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 8:37 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
> This is very vague. How "inappropriate" the behavior was? It really matters whether it was eating-pizza-with-fork-and-knife level inappropriate, or murder-threat level inappropriate.
RMS behaviour to the opposite sex has repeatedly been described as "creepy". He has been asked to stop, repeatedly and persistently.
Not helped by the fact that he has been the "perfect gentleman" in taking rejection properly and professionally.
The problem is that he seems incapable of grasping that (a) his approach is pretty much guaranteed to result in rejection, and (b) that the consequence of that is that the women involved don't come back to FLOSS.
THAT is probably yet another reason why women don't want to get involved in any formal process - there is demonstrably no malice - just extreme stupidity - on RMS' part.
Cheers,
Wol
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 12:32 UTC (Tue) by nilsmeyer (✭ supporter ✭, #122604) [Link]
I think it would be far better to put forth other candidates and a governance model that is more agreeable than to dwell on someone's personality flaws.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 12:50 UTC (Tue) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 7:53 UTC (Tue) by Psychonaut (guest, #86437) [Link]
This is a claim I have often seen repeated but never substantiated. I have even read a few online posts from people who say that they were personally on the receiving end of inappropriate behaviour, but these events are often described very vaguely and none of the posters use their given names, nor any other identity that I can tie to the community of free software users or developers (though admittedly, I rarely checked deeper than a cursory web search).
Don't get me wrong; I am not trying to dismiss all such complaints as baseless fabrications. And I can well understand why sometimes people with a genuine complaint may want to remain anonymous or pseudonymous. But anonymity and pseudonymity do make it rather difficult for others to verify even the most basic facts of the complaint, and thus to separate substantiable allegations made in good faith from gossip and trolling. Can anyone point me to some verifiable first-hand accounts of inappropriate behaviour?
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 20:25 UTC (Mon) by flussence (subscriber, #85566) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 7, 2019 22:31 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
(Which human right is this, anyway?)
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 1:43 UTC (Tue) by JorgePMorais (guest, #134851) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 1:43 UTC (Tue) by JorgePMorais (guest, #134851) [Link]
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 3:05 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
Personally, I think the answer to speech you don't like is more speech. Pointing out "hey, why is this guy our figurehead?" is a valid response to his email in my view. You may not agree with it, but I can't say there's anything illegal with it.
There are limits on speech however. The threats and such that come out to people who write the response alluded to above is not tolerated generally (though only "true threats" are actually illegal; it's a legal term). I don't know why those who believe they should be immune to repercussions think they can make threats in response to things they don't like and not see a contradiction, but whatever.
(This is a correlation I've noticed; not everyone does this and it's not restricted to one "side" either, but I notice it coming from similar groups and in relation to certain topics at least.)
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 8:41 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
People who talk in terms of "rights" like to think they can get away with anything.
People who talk in terms of "responsibility" like to think that they *earn* their rights.
(I care for my family. That *earns* me the right to be cared for if I need it. I defend *others* right to free speech. That *earns* me the right to speak freely. etc etc)
They may only be two sides of the same coin, but the attitude is completely different.
Cheers,
Wol
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 8:58 UTC (Tue) by einar (guest, #98134) [Link]
One might object on the proportion of consequences. Nowadays you can get fired for making a crass joke to someone else (not as a speaker, regular conversation with someone), if it is overheard by a third person which then takes offense from it.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project
Posted Oct 8, 2019 13:02 UTC (Tue) by ehiggs (subscriber, #90713) [Link]
Copyright © 2019, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds