It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software

[mjg59]

Richard Stallman has once again managed to demonstrate incredible insensitivity[1]. There's an argument that in a pure technical universe this is irrelevant and we should instead only consider what he does in free software[2], but free software isn't a purely technical topic - the GNU Manifesto is nakedly political, and while free software may result in better technical outcomes it is fundamentally focused on individual freedom and will compromise on technical excellence if otherwise the result would be any compromise on those freedoms. And in a political movement, there is no way that we can ignore the behaviour and beliefs of that movement's leader. Stallman is driving away our natural allies. It's inappropriate for him to continue as the figurehead for free software.

But I'm not calling for Stallman to be replaced. If the history of social movements has taught us anything, it's that tying a movement to a single individual is a recipe for disaster. The FSF needs a president, but there's no need for that person to be a leader - instead, we need to foster an environment where any member of the community can feel empowered to speak up about the importance of free software. A decentralised movement about returning freedoms to individuals can't also be about elevating a single individual to near-magical status. Heroes will always end up letting us down. We fix that by removing the need for heroes in the first place, not attempting to find increasingly perfect heroes.

Stallman was never going to save us. We need to take responsibility for saving ourselves. Let's talk about how we do that.

[1] There will doubtless be people who will leap to his defense with the assertion that he's neurodivergent and all of these cases are consequences of that.

(A) I am unaware of a formal diagnosis of that, and I am unqualified to make one myself. I suspect that basically everyone making that argument is similarly unqualified.
(B) I've spent a lot of time working with him to help him understand why various positions he holds are harmful. I've reached the conclusion that it's not that he's unable to understand, he's just unwilling to change his mind.

[2] This argument is, obviously, bullshit

Comments

[valdikss]

>The word "rape" is not improperly used - the law considers that people under the age of consent are (as the phrase implies) not able to offer meaningful consent. The term "sexual assault" also has a well defined meaning that does not require violence.

Yes, that's what the other person replied to Stallman, in another words.

>It has something to do with the FSF because, well, he's the founder and leader of the FSF?

He doesn't speak from FSF, it's his own words as a person. If Stallman did his FSF duties before these words and will do exactly the same duties after these words, why does it matter? Why should personal opinion (or in this case just a misunderstanding and questions) should somehow influence FSF?

I don't know, it looks like a usual, everyday conversation for me, that I don't understand why this is news and why it has something with FSF.

[mjg59]

The context is RMS having this conversation on a mailing list belonging to the university where Minsky worked, on which there are people under the age of consent. It's a wildly inappropriate place to have the conversation. The reason RMS can't separate himself from the FSF is because he's synonymous with it. He could have built a different organisation over the past 30 years, but he didn't, and as a result everything he does will be interpreted in association with the FSF whether it should be or not.

[valdikss]

>It's a wildly inappropriate place to have the conversation.

Yes, I agree with that in general. As far as I understand, that mailing list is technical and Stallman replied to off-topic message, bringing more off-topic messages.

>The reason RMS can't separate himself from the FSF is because he's synonymous with it.

mjg59, you speak about yourself. It's you who can't separate the person from the foundation. I see Stallman and FSF as two different entities. I understand why people associate Stallman with FSF though, as he is widely known for FSF, but that's not how a sane person should think.

I have friends who hate gays or even all English-speakers in general, but that does not impact their professional career. They are brilliant hardware and software reverse engineers. This is beyond any logic, but this is how it is.
Now, this situation is the same: if the topic is "child abuse" and someone says something contraversal, other turn off their logical thinking and blame him.

[mjg59]

It's how sane people do think. It turns out that people who are gay frequently don't feel comfortable working for someone who hates them, and there are straight people who won't work for people who hate gay people because they don't want to work in an environment that discourages others from being involved because of their sexuality. RMS's remarks (on mtiple topics, not just this one) suggest he has beliefs that disproportionately impact women, and that results in many women being unwilling to work with him because they don't believe he'll represent their interests (something you want a community leader to do). There are also many men who are u willing to associate with free software as a result.

MJG59 is a self righteous douchebag

[(Anonymous)]

Seriously, every post you make just fucking reeks of self-righteousness and some kind of feigned moral superiority.

fucking assholes like you are why Trump got elected. Go fuck yourself.

People like you need a severe beating.

Re: MJG59 is a self righteous douchebag

[mjg59]

fucking assholes like you are why Trump got elected. Go fuck yourself.

Pretty sure that's a consequence of people voting for Trump.

Let's stay realistic

[(Anonymous)]

Valdikiss is right. I know RMS (in person) and I think that you play games here. What you *really mean* is that anyone not largely agreeing with your woke position is somehow evil or at least wrong. "gay" - in the "old times" (pre 2016) I've worked with many gays, BDSMers, and whatnot, but I can only presume that because I didn't care. In work we usually only looked at work related factors. Ones sexual, food, or other personal taste or choice or belief simply was irrelevant. And well noted, I'm considered an "ultra conservative" person in your circles. The other core issue is objective facts vs. "feeling". Pre 2016 you felt this or that, oh well what would I care? Maybe I did care because I liked you, maybe I didn't because after all it was just your *feeling*. Today though all those woke fanatics want to force us to accept their feelings as somehow relevant and even on the same level as facts - sorry, no, your feelings are *not* equally relevant as facts. RMS - whom I do not particularly like - is right. Simple as that. His right to speak his mind is no less valid than what you feel. He also is right because words do have meaning. The word "rape" means to do something sexual without the other persons consent, period. Saying that a minor can't legally consent is trickery. That same minor *can* have consensual sex with another minor, so it's obviously *not* his incapacity to consent that is the problem. And btw more than a few in "liberal" circles actually are *pro* sex with minors. FYI/context: I do not like RMS, I do not care about Minsky, I am not pro trump, and I'm not even american.I'm definitely tired and pi**ed off though of the woke games and BS.