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

[(Anonymous)]

Look Matthew, I know you already said this about RMS before. But tell me, what is the solution? You know very well that a "president" wouldn't work for the FSF. In truth, it would be a committee mandate. And we know how well those things work, specially in technological environments. Either everyone agrees or no one does anything. And then people start picking sides, and tearing each other over political stuff. And nothing is done. What I mean is, if there isn't a RMS in the FSF, is there _actually_ someone who can be that person to foster that environment you speak of, or is it that just a bunch of buzzwords? Because face it - at the end of the day, no one wants to be RMS. That's how we got where we are today. No one wants the responsibility of being a "leader" of this movement. You may argue that this "president" may foster this environment of empowerment and tolerance, and I'm pretty sure this all makes sense inside your head. But how do we turn that into reality? Because I'm sure there isn't anyone who can do both what you said and hold the reins of the situation, ie. not letting people tear each other apart in a committee mandate.

You're always at the vanguard of those calls for change, so I ask you - why not take responsability, just this once? You're an excellent agent provocateur - and agitator - but aside from getting in the news once every few months about some issue happenning on the community, you never follow through. I'm not laying the blame of this on you, I'm saying that you can very well take the first step to foster this environment you dream of, yourself. This is a big chance for change. RMS should go. But at least in the beginning, some has to take the reins of the situation. No one ousted RMS yet because no one wants to be in his place. Everyone wants change, but everyone also doesn't want to take responsibility for this change. It must always be _someone else_ that takes the opportunity, never me. "I'm sure others will take care of it" is what everyone is thinking right now.

So if you can't find in your heart to follow through at least this once, then this situation will just pass over and RMS will stay the "hero" of the FSF. Because at the crucial moment, no one wanted to take responsibility. And your dream of a "community of empowerment" will be just that. A dream. Words scattered to the winds.

[mjg59]

I'm far too compromised to do that. I've alienated enough of the community that there's no realistic way that any initiative I take any kind of direct responsibility for will ever be meaningfully representative. I can talk about this and I can attempt to help others, but any meaningful effort on my part to do this on my own is doomed to splinter the community more than is necessary. Instead, all I can do is attempt to encourage others to play that role and do what I can to support them.

Step on up

[(Anonymous)]

First time here.

Your article is getting around a bit on Mastodon. I was not previously aware that RMS was harassing people, or that the core community consisted of so many people who would respond to this stuff by arguing f-ing semantics. (What do these people do when they see a car accident? Argue about the origin of the term "ambulance?")

Thanks for getting the word out.
Thanks for suggesting we do better than swapping one jerk* for another.

Your community is already splintered. (Not *just* yours, it's everywhere). I don't know what precisely works for your situation, but for whatever you consider a "meaningful effort": Do that.

There are already too many people willing to fight for the right to be jerks. The rest of us are going to have to learn how to step up for one another. We're going to have to get comfortable with the fact that some people think harassment and abusive behavior is justifiable. We have to remember that we don't *want* people like that to like us. Let them make up their own bed.

Keep trying your best, it matters.

* That *was* the nicest way I could put it.

Re: Step on up

[(Anonymous)]

So far, there are only 2 viable dominant business models in the world OS market = M$'s licensing or subscription fees or Google's giving away free popular software(eg Android) to users in return for the ability to obtain targeted ad revenue through them.

Maybe Canonical should adopt either one, eg sell OEM Ubuntu licenses for US$20 each to undercut M$.
Of course Ubuntu first needs to be as newbie-friendly as Windows, eg Ubuntu needs to include non-free hardware device drivers/firmware in the kernel and develop more GUI tools like Windows's Macrium Reflect Free and Flashback Express.

Re: Step on up

[(Anonymous)]

"So far, there are only 2 viable dominant business models in the world OS market = M$'s licensing or subscription fees or Google's giving away free popular software(eg Android) to users in return for the ability to obtain targeted ad revenue through them."

Ray Norda, if he were still alive would be my choice to lead. He used closed source when there was no open source alternative, and didn't lose sleep over it. Caldera was way ahead of the pack.

[(Anonymous)]

I understand, I'll not inquire about this any further.
Forgive me for the rant, but I'm just a nobody in this community. I started to get involved a year ago, and from what I could gather, the tech community thrives under abrasive personalities (Torvalds, de Raadt, RMS) simply because of one thing: they know how to run the show. People dislike, hate them. But no one wants to stand up to the task of taking over and doing a better job. You may think some of your posts don't reach many people, but they do. When you called for the community to be better, it struck a chord with me. But not in a good way. I remember asking myself the same question a few months ago. And the answer I've arrived at was:

Can the community be better? Absolutely.
Does the community WANT to be better? No.

And that's where it all falls apart. I may be repeating myself here, but your dream of a community of empowerment is one many people share. But do people REALLY want it? Because what I've seen so far... well, let's just say I've become disillusioned really quickly. People don't really want change. They want to complain. They want some kind of magical solution that removes only the people they dislike and leaves them alone to do their stuff. That's why people are satisfied with letting abrasive personalities walk all over them. Because deep down, they know they aren't up to the task. They know that, if they ever step onto the center of the stage, they won't be themselves anymore. They'll make a lot of enemies really fast - just by taking centerstage, they'll splinter the community. Some people won't like them on principle. Others, because of connections. And that dreamer who just wanted to make the community a better place, is left alone, trying to forever patch up a community that isn't worth all the time they've spent on it.
I guess that's why people like RMS and Torvalds thrive in our community: they don't really care. They don't have to make goody-goody with people. I'm not saying that it's the right way, it's just the way things are right now - and that just makes everyone miserable.

Well, that was a weight off my shoulders. Sorry for taking your time.

Community = Communism.?

[(Anonymous)]

With about 2% world market share of mostly egoistic and self-righteous techgeeks, the desktop Linux community is a freely anarchic and toxic community, like a pack of wild dogs fighting over 2 pieces of meat.

Re: Community = Communism.?

[(Anonymous)]

Like a pack of wild dogs.
The most apt comparison I've ever heard.

MJG59 is a self righteous douchebag

[(Anonymous)]

Great post. Bravo. Matthew is a unexceptional contributor and a garden variety virtue junkie.