The FSF Is Re-Evaluating Its Relationship With The GNU

[moilami]

What is interesting is that credibility of Trump increased regarding his fake news and evil media claims.

Regarding Stallman I wonder how much he have time for Free Software issues since he appear to be quite busy in all kind of human rights issues. This is also something what make me think that maybe he should retire and focus on general human rights issues.

[randomizer]

Not that I don't feel bad for people, just that I'd say something a hell of a lot sooner than 20 years later if I was molested and harassed on a habitual basis and it just seems f*cking off that one would wait a decade or two to say something.

This is easy to say if you've never been abused. It seems logical to you to disclose abuse but there are many mental barriers for a victim to get through. Abuse often involves serious emotional trauma that impairs a victim's ability to do the "obvious" thing and disclose. Victims are often made to feel responsible for the abuse. Victims don't think people will believe them even if they do disclose (which is frequently true, unfortunately). Furthermore, some victims are blamed even by the people they disclose to, which makes it less likely that they'll disclose to someone else.

In terms of time frames for reporting, it depends how old you were when you were abused, and the nature of the abuse. Children and adolescents typically do wait 20+ years before disclosing sexual abuse, for example.

[fsfhfc2018]

1. Does Stallman have a right to his position in the GNU ptoject, or/and his former position in the FSF? If yes, that means that in a just world, nothing would ever unseat him. If no, then the question becomes...
2. Is Stallman the right person for the position? If yes, that means a rational world would keep him in said position(s). If no, then the rational option is to replace him with someone better suited to it.

Clearly the FSF has decided the answers are 'No' and 'No'. Obviously there are people here who agree with that assessment (and may be neutral, agreeable, or opposed to how it came about); and there's people who clearly like his track record and believe him the best man for the job; but I think I also see people who believe, through one chain of logic or another, he has a right to be where he was...

There are some definite problems with this. You're making the case that he's either right for the job or he isn't-- that he either has a right to his position or he doesn't.

That's easy to oversimplify. You're also basically incorrect when you say "Clearly the FSF has decided the answers are 'No' and 'No'." That's definitely jumping to a conclusion based on media allegations, not facts from sources that have the greatest say in this (not facts publicly available from the FSF, whose position you're commenting on.)

Not left in your does/doesn't categorisation is the idea that he has "some" right to his position with GNU (how much?) as I think a lot of us think he has a certain amount of credibility and inherent worth to the project. Yes, that's disputed by some people (even a few who are actual GNU maintainers, not that becoming a GNU maintainer proves any loyalty to free software or fitness to dictate the entire project themselves.) Imagine getting together with some co-workers and ousting your own boss this way. What do you think would happen?

You'd probably have to go through actual due process to find out whether your claims were of real merit, rather than just let the tech press preside, the most vocal twitterers be the jury, and not throw out (or even adequately comment on) false evidence. This is a non-profit, and this sort of kangaroo process wouldn't fly in the corporate world, but suddenly everything is held to allegedly corporate standards-- except of course, the process of removing someone is not.

I think what most of us really think Stallman has a "right" to is to be given a process that is held to as high a standard as the demands being made. What's happening where the court of public opinion and twitter are joining to fire someone with a process involving falsehoods, misquotes and well-paid authors throwing in bad information-- this is not due process nor is it fair.

Commenting on the outcome is kind of a joke until the process isn't. And the process is never going to be fair, so the only reasonable conclusion is that the outcome is also unfair.

That's not good enough for Stallman's critics-- they want to right to do him wrong, without a fair process-- and then they want to say "it serves him right!"

An unfair process doesn't serve anybody right. Until this is done correctly, everybody participating in this stoning is participating in mass dishonesty and injustice, while calling for "something better" from the person they're doing this to.

The word "hypocrisy" has always been there, for people who hold others to high standards, but not themselves. Stallman deserves better than this because everybody deserves better. But these same people are going to keep demanding that the person deserves the outcome, even if the process is unjust and erroneous. That's a fancy way of saying "the ends justify the means." All it really proves is these people don't care about justice or injustice-- only removing Stallman.

Yeah, I would say he has a right to better than that.

[JorgePeixoto]

Hi guys. Please read this: <https://jorgemorais.gitlab.io/justice-for-rms/>. Stallman has his flaws, but the public assessment of his character has been gravely contaminated by a storm of hate.

[1Samildanach]

Two strands are tied together in this -- the process and the result. That is, the way Stallman has come to be removed, and the fact his has been removed. You can disagree with one, both, or neither, but you need to be clear about which ones.

I have two questions which may help one clarify one's views on the second topic (whether or not he should have been removed at all):

1. Does Stallman have a right to his position in the GNU ptoject, or/and his former position in the FSF? If yes, that means that in a just world, nothing would ever unseat him. If no, then the question becomes...
2. Is Stallman the right person for the position? If yes, that means a rational world would keep him in said position(s). If no, then the rational option is to replace him with someone better suited to it.

Clearly the FSF has decided the answers are 'No' and 'No'. Obviously there are people here who agree with that assessment (and may be neutral, agreeable, or opposed to how it came about); and there's people who clearly like his track record and believe him the best man for the job; but I think I also see people who believe, through one chain of logic or another, he has a right to be where he was... which strikes me as rather analogous to the people who believe Bill Gates (et al!) deserves all the power and influence Microsoft acquired.

Yes, Microsoft gained its position by being the Evil Empire, and the FSF got where it is by being freedom fighters, which is a material difference, but the fundamental logic is the same, and belief that some people have more rights than others facilitates the monopolies and abuses the FSF was founded to oppose.

[oiaohm]

I think the GPL license should be updated to only allow developers who have officially said something outrageous (regardless of if true or not) to contribute to a project.

Nothing done says that RMS cannot contribute. Just he is not suitable for particular roles. Saying something too far outrageous like it or not make you legally not suitable for management roles and that is just how it is. "Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970" legally have higher authority than copyright licences. Yes a breach of copyright to conform to "Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970" is legal. So no matter what you put in GPL license the "Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970" override it all.

These laws based on really old legal precedents are powerful. Basically here you suggesting a totally pointless change instead of focusing on adjusting the labour laws.

[moilami]

I have made my mind in this matter. I personally hate it when people sit 50 years in the same position. They should retire and open the door to the office for fresh air.

Stallman have done a great job. I disagree completely on that he would had been bad person to the position he was in. Quite the contrary is true, he pushed uncompromising and with great faith on. And the results are seen. Without Stallman I highly doubt we would be anywhere close to this.

All this said I still believe Stallman should retire in order for the office to get fresh air but more so because he should enjoy life of a retired person, if he just is able to do that. But he is a smart guy, he should be able to figure out how to enjoy of his retirement days, which he has totally earned.

[fsfhfc2018]

In this thread: Lots of hysterical whining about people exercising their right to free association by choosing not to associate with someone.

In this post, someone actually suggesting that a few people trying to kick a founder out of a group of hundreds has something to do with "the right of free association."

If anything, they are calling for free association to be less free by banning someone on behalf of the majority. And you have the nerve to call pointing out what is a tragedy for the majority of them/us "whining?"

[fuzz]

I'm torn. I can't wait to see Stallman gone, but it should have happened long ago on the basis of him being a bad front person for just about everything.

This is the best way I've seen someone phrase this.

There are so many people saying things like "he should have been gone a long time ago" but don't admit that this witch hunt is a bad way to do it.

[TLE02]

I'm torn. I can't wait to see Stallman gone, but it should have happened long ago on the basis of him being a bad front person for just about everything.