Richard Stallman Reportedly Steps Down As Head Of The GNU Project

[Guest]

GPL is not harming any professional software developer. You release a piece of software as GPL if you choose so, nobody forces it on you. If you choose not to, what the GPL does is forbidding to use GPL code in it. And that's not an issue, because you are not in any way entitled to get that code and use it for profit.

If you are developing free software, the GPL allow sharing it while preventing others from taking your work and selling it as their own. They are allowed to modify, improve, and share it back though.

You're 100% correct, it doesn't harm me, as professional developer, at all,.. It harms diversity of quality solutions, as I haven't yet met any corporate willing to touch GPL-ed software.

Some GPL software is very nice piece of work, which never gets adopted and never receives contributions by the most of big corporate companies. On the other hand, solutions provided by Apache foundation, are adopted in both worlds, open-source applications are based on them, and also proprietary ones. I've arrived to proprietary world from open-source background, and I've seen people usually reluctant to open-source, and focused on proprietary solutions, which I is due to extreme position of FSF and "freedom" (as in free beer) movement.

And, it's sad to see big companies focusing only on full-stack proprietary solutions, as I would like to see common high quality open-source basis for both worlds (proprietary solutions for end-users, and open-source ones). And, this is slowly becoming reality with licenses like Apache. So, my words/agenda is against GPL, only.

[moilami]

My agenda is to contrast idea of enforced freedom to acquire software for free (as in free beer), without having to pay for it. And, that "freedom" is enforced by GPL in viral way. Who wants to take, should give/contribute. Freedom to acquire things for free is beneficial only for lazy people,... What's agenda of FSF forum warriors/supporters? To take/acquire software for free?

I see, well, in The Circus there is room for everyone

Getting software for free is clearly a big benefit, but I doubt I myself would had been drawn to Free Software because of that. If getting software for free was my motivation I would had chosen *BSD, which always triggered my nerd fancy more than GNU/Linux.

Software is easy to copy and modify due to its nature. Being active in Free Software movement or just using Free Software is a way to change the world for good. It is the best venue for all people in the world to build and improve something for mutual benefit. Sounds idealistic? Well, I think I have all the rights in the world to be idealistic in my man cave

[Dedobot]

Me thinks the software's main characteristics needs to be the quality in all of it aspects - functionality, security, scaling..e.t.c.
"Free" and open source solutions often shines above others - and cause not simple budget reasons. Isn't it good ?!

[oiaohm]

Stallman only correctly wrote that Minsky cannot be accused of wrong doing without any evidence against him.

This is the difference between leader and activist.

A project/company leader has to be willing to accept claims of wrong doing without any evidence as information to be investigated. Once there is evidence one way or the other than the project/company leader can comment not before.

Part of being a project/company lead comes with responsibility that does tie you hands where one serous things like rapes and assaults you can not just say no evidence. You have to have at least evidence of a proper investigation that found nothing before being able to say there is no evidence to the claim..

Activist/advocate can say what Stallman said. Basically a Leader should not say that stuff but let PR department handle answers.

Therefore Stallman was right to defend Minsky until any real evidence is provided against him and all criticism of Stallman that I have seen was not based on what he actually wrote.

That is the mistake. A project leader is required to work on evidence. Stallman did not have the evidence one way or the other so while a project leader really could not legally make a comment. A correct lead move in the position of lacking information is no comment. You don't attempt to defend someone until you have the facts on the matter.

Aiding and abetting laws are a pain in but for CEOs and Project leads.

There are responsibility with being a project lead or CEO to make sure you don't aide and abet a crime you can be done by for this offence by simple acting way that appears to show that you will not take a report of a criminal offence seriously even if that report is currently short in information.

Like it or not there is a serous need for Activist/Advocates and Project/Company leads not to be the same person. What you can say in the two roles when it comes to crimes is very different and have very different legal issues.

[Shiba]

So, turns out it was some lamer?

[Dedobot]

Good chunk of the great minds in human history doesn't had a nice and polite individuality.

[pmorph]

Yes stallman is guilty of toxic behavior... is he practically the poster child for toxic behavior.

That is one interesting assessment, considering how much toxins Stallman has been pulling in from every corner of the community lately. But maybe that is what you meant with toxic behaviours? Being in need of a hazmat suit.

[hotaru]

The US is not a totalitarian dystopia where you receive negative social credit points for bad behavior. Being a dick is not a felony.

the fact that being a dick is not a felony doesn't mean people can't point out that a dick is in fact a dick and choose not to associate with him. and Stallman's behavior goes way beyond just being a dick. you can't expect to defend things like pedophilia without any social consequences.

[red23]

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.

BSD? I think I remember a story, no details anymore, that showed they were at the top of the stupid SJW game.

[oiaohm]

the fact that being a dick is not a felony doesn't mean people can't point out that a dick is in fact a dick and choose not to associate with him. and Stallman's behavior goes way beyond just being a dick. you can't expect to defend things like pedophilia without any social consequences.

Problem with the law being a dick as a company/project lead over something that can be a criminal offence means you you can be done for a felony for attempting to aid and abet by attempting cover up the crime even if that was not what you were attempting todo.

There are legal restrictions on how you can handle yourself as a company/project lead like it or not. If you are a dick that cannot keep your mouth shut on topics when you legally need to you just cannot be company/project lead. This does not mean that dick of a person cannot cannot be head of PR or something like that instead that does not have the same legal responsibilities so foot in mouth with those other titles are not as dangerous legally.

Basically Richard Stallman had job titles that did not suite his personality type. Do we want Richard Stallman to change his personality or will it be better for him to give up the incompatible titles with his personality and remain himself? Of course this does not mean he cannot be given other titles in time that he is truly legally competent to-do and will not risk legal trouble.