Richard Stallman Reportedly Steps Down As Head Of The GNU Project

[alcalde]

Jesus fucking christ, when did the overall linux community turn to witch hunts?

Guess I'll start looking at BSD.

EDIT:
It doesn't even matter who it is, this just toxic behavior.

So your outrage is reserved for people who don't want to work with Richard Stallman anymore, and not Richard Stallman? This reminds me of when Brendan Eich was funneling money to groups who wanted to overturn same-sex marriages that had taken place in California and the outrage was at gay employees who didn't want to work for him rather than at Eich for trying to dissolve his employees' legal marriages.

[azdaha]

Quit straw-manning and lying about what I have said, I never said that this 2 people are similar or the same or whatever your crazy ideas you made up. I just said that many people are full of this crazy cancel culture, and independent how similar Trump or Stallman are people that are angry about the totalitarian authoritarian SJWs and Feminists vote for trump. So the more people you digitally murder with such reasons the more easy Trump will win the election.

That is what I said not the fantasies you made up about me.

Again, at a risk of going off on a tangent, the two are not even in the same universe when it comes to railing against "totalitarian authoritarian" policies. Trump is a business man turned politician who uses the same totalitarian and authoritarian style for personal gain. He rants about anything and anyone who stands in his way of personal enrichment, spewing lies and conspiracy theories (not hyperbole, btw) ONLY when it serves him personally and against personal "enemies"; thereby sewing further doubt and division between people, which you perceive as a "cancel culture" vs. bigotry culture (from perspective of the other side).

He is a cause as well as a product of the cynical views regarding feminism (which has been around for decades) and affirmative action (in the sense of protecting and uplifting minorities of all kinds). I am not trying to attribute anything to you personally, other than to point out the flaws in your logic as far as I can see.

[blackiwid]

Yeah...comparing Trump to Stallman, not even in the same universe, much less the same species. The former being a trust-fund baby with no morals or ethical values, using mafia-style techniques and nepotism to enrich himself. Disgusting to even suggest attributing anything remotely similar to Stallman, unless you're entirely lacking of moral fiber and ethics yourself.

Quit straw-manning and lying about what I have said, I never said that this 2 people are similar or the same or whatever your crazy ideas you made up. I just said that many people are full of this crazy cancel culture, and independent how similar Trump or Stallman are people that are angry about the totalitarian authoritarian SJWs and Feminists vote for trump. So the more people you digitally murder with such reasons the more easy Trump will win the election.

That is what I said not the fantasies you made up about me.

[tildearrow]

Richard Stallman is into too many 'ISMS. Not good. Computing/Software should be non-political other than commercialism vs freedom.

I agree, but at least he knows how to isolate politics from code, unlike those who adopted that covenant.

[tildearrow]

Then in this hostile context, Linux fragmentation it's a good thing because, no single corporation/organization/entity can control it.

But it too is a bad thing. This is why we have GNOME and KDE (and a thousand other desktops).

[azdaha]

People are inherently a bit, less, or more, lazy, and everybody wants to do as little for as much gain as is possible, just some posses other virtues in their hearts, and some are just plain selfish. People possessing virtues make bigger group of people/society to be the target of gain, selfish people make themselves the biggest and the only target of gain. Lazy people can be hard workers, but only if it's something in it for them.

So, for pure socialism, it won't work without military/police to enforce. As selfish lazy people must be forced to contribute to a society,... Therefore, extreme leftist position, that everybody is free to take what he/she needs/wants, doesn't build healthy society. Everybody musts earn that right, it's not inherently deserved, but one must participate. However, if socialism enforces participation by military/police, then it strips away freedom to organize own time, as one would like. Each right/freedom cuts both way, on one side there is a taker, on the other side there is a giver.

Capitalism, focuses more on personal responsibility, as without valuable (not just being busy) participation one won't get money to live. But, capitalism contributes to money is power, and not really nice people can get power that way. Also, in "socialism", contacts are power.

There are always ways to misuse current social/political system, just find the best way to be a taker in it. None would make world a good place. Only, if people are pursuing virtues in their hearts. That can't be enforced, as people always find way to get around system. Pursing virtues must be wanted by each one. But, how? Religion? Philosophy? Psychology? Correct parental care? Correct attitude of authorities - teachers and politically ranked people?

True enough. Which would mean that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Therefore, a democracy with capitalism as the economic foundation provides solutions for some of those problems. Where it falls short, that's where social policies come in. Criticizing those, however, as somehow being a vice, rather than a necessity or even a virtue has become a popular habit; which, you have to admit, is evident in your own previous comments on here.

Finally, my comments regarding perpetual militarism focus more on US vs. USSR, which saw the US (flushed with wealth from old world Europe) outspend the USSR on military technology.

[azdaha]

I wonder how many people who think this is grave injustice would feel the same way if they read his blog posts. I was totally against Stallman long before this came out. His recent issues pale in comparison to the fact that he posted multiple times on his blog that he children should be having sex with adults. Ever since I read those posts I've been completely against him. Add to that the fact that he would harass the women who worked at MIT and his recent statements and this is a no-brainer that he should step down.

Here are some of the things hes posted on his blog over the years:



You can find the source of any of these quotes by searching them on stallman.org like this in Google site:stallman.org "recognize the act as sex until it was explained to me afterward"

Freedom of speach is not freedom of consequences. I can promote pedophilia all I want (which is sex with prepubescent children). I can not expect to say things like this at work and keep my job.

This borders inappropriate discussion, granted. If you are attempting to purely discuss a controversial issue on an intellectual basis, however, it does deserve to be taken with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, despicable people exist in all forums of life; whether it's academic or religious institutions, every-day-life, or even on the internet. Using that as a basis for expanding a police-state to the internet, which affects ALL of us (as presented in the Snowden documents) should be of concern to ALL of us. Whether it's "terrorism" or "pedophilia" (quotes added to indicate intended scary trigger words) or any other specific reason for a basis of garnering support around an issue, personal freedoms have been eroded and will continue to be eroded with the auspices of serving the public good. That's how and why this issue is seen by me. I am far from an apologist of any kind. If you are aiming to counteract a threatening phenomenon through intellectual means, however, you have to weaken its foundation through analysis and sometimes even speculative hypotheses.


Again, looking at some of the quotes there from an intellectual perspective, the question is posed of scrutinizing the psychological effects on children from varying types of sexual abuse. The case could be made that Stallman had nothing to do with that type of work. However, as I eluded in my previous remarks, if you look at the overall issue as it pertains to the internet (or even privacy and personal freedoms in the US), you can see how Stallman's idealistic views align with counteracting such sweeping efforts by governments and multinational corporations.


https://www.fastcompany.com/90208133...sed-against-us

There is nothing wrong in GPL license. This has been discussed tens of years ago and practice did show that there is nothing wrong in it. Basicly if you are a developer you must chose licenses according to your business and clients.

Some do not want or can't benefit of GPL software, but that does not make the license bad. There are other licenses for those. GPL license need no fixing, even though there is this weird movement who is calling fixes to GPL license and promote "just software license", like GPL would not be just. I have tried to find more details of changes they want, but haven't found any, making their calls to appear as toxic whining.

You should think this as an entrepreneur and not like a shoe maker lacking work because there is so tough competition. Every business faces very tough competition. If there is a profitable business with no tough competition, then it is either a monopoly, a cartel, or business held by a friend of a dictator. If anything GPL open doors for people to make business with software. Without GPL you would be much worse off, you would have empty hard disk and you would be on mercy of software companies to get even the tools you need to make software. Imagine that and compare that to shoe maker, who would never ever get a chance to get free tools to make shoes.

You're correct. GPL and FSF definitely heavily contributed to the open software world, as we see it now. My full respect goes to people, who actually contributed to make that happen, and put lots of effort into it

So far, there had been a huge gap between opensource world, and proprietary, in past. GPL is extreme leftist license, which denies freedom to base proprietary solutions. That position might have been needed in past, to not get consumed without reward by corporations.

Nowadays, that extreme position of GPL is cause of its decline. There are permissive licenses, and corporates work together to develop free software providing benefit to both FOSS world and proprietary one. One example is rapid adoption of LLVM. Other is spring framework, and apache foundation projects. That's just a future, and nowadays it's not worth it to work on GPL software, because it cuts many adoption paths, therefore it cuts off many possible contributors.

And, about shoe making,... Tools/hardware are not free, but research and techniques are free to use.

[moilami]

Yep, some SJW people of the "Free Software Movement", fighting for extreme position of freedom (emphasis on free as in free beer) to take anything they want, would be quite nice addition to The Circus ;-)

I like, and share, the view, that Free Software is a way to change the world towards a better place. The only thing, that I'm against regarding Free Software, is the extreme leftist position/attitude of some Free Software advocates/proponents. My disagreement only applies to that extreme - these SJW people of FSF, and GPL license.

History confirms, that socialism didn't work well.

There is nothing wrong in GPL license. This has been discussed tens of years ago and practice did show that there is nothing wrong in it. Basicly if you are a developer you must chose licenses according to your business and clients.

Some do not want or can't benefit of GPL software, but that does not make the license bad. There are other licenses for those. GPL license need no fixing, even though there is this weird movement who is calling fixes to GPL license and promote "just software license", like GPL would not be just. I have tried to find more details of changes they want, but haven't found any, making their calls to appear as toxic whining.

You should think this as an entrepreneur and not like a shoe maker lacking work because there is so tough competition. Every business faces very tough competition. If there is a profitable business with no tough competition, then it is either a monopoly, a cartel, or business held by a friend of a dictator. If anything GPL open doors for people to make business with software. Without GPL you would be much worse off, you would have empty hard disk and you would be on mercy of software companies to get even the tools you need to make software. Imagine that and compare that to shoe maker, who would never ever get a chance to get free tools to make shoes.

Actually, history confirms that lack of Socialism does not end well. French Revolution American Revolution has been attributed to that as well, btw. If you are implying that the Soviet Union failed because of Socialism, you are probably wrong; unless you also mean that the only way to govern is through perpetual militarism.

I better stop, as this thread is all over the place and, yet again, troll central and the original article/announcement was proven to be false.

People are inherently a bit, less, or more, lazy, and everybody wants to do as little for as much gain as is possible, just some posses other virtues in their hearts, and some are just plain selfish. People possessing virtues make bigger group of people/society to be the target of gain, selfish people make themselves the biggest and the only target of gain. Lazy people can be hard workers, but only if it's something in it for them.

So, for pure socialism, it won't work without military/police to enforce. As selfish lazy people must be forced to contribute to a society,... Therefore, extreme leftist position, that everybody is free to take what he/she needs/wants, doesn't build healthy society. Everybody musts earn that right, it's not inherently deserved, but one must participate. However, if socialism enforces participation by military/police, then it strips away freedom to organize own time, as one would like. Each right/freedom cuts both way, on one side there is a taker, on the other side there is a giver.

Capitalism, focuses more on personal responsibility, as without valuable (not just being busy) participation one won't get money to live. But, capitalism contributes to money is power, and not really nice people can get power that way. Also, in "socialism", contacts are power.

There are always ways to misuse current social/political system, just find the best way to be a taker in it. None would make world a good place. Only, if people are pursuing virtues in their hearts. That can't be enforced, as people always find way to get around system. Pursing virtues must be wanted by each one. But, how? Religion? Philosophy? Psychology? Correct parental care? Correct attitude of authorities - teachers and politically ranked people?