I wasn't sure about posting this because: Previous discussions about Richard Stallman haven't been the smoothest My opinion that Stallman is a poor leader and should step down hasn't changed since...
I wasn't sure about posting this because:
Previous discussions about Richard Stallman haven't been the smoothest
My opinion that Stallman is a poor leader and should step down hasn't changed since the original "mailing list incident" that kicked this off. I don't have much to add on that aspect, nor do I feel like arguing about it anymore
However, this report is very thorough.
I would also like to highlight a comment from the discussion on Lobsters as to why "the fight" over the leadership and direction of the Free Software Foundation could be considered important:
Aside from questions of RMS’s influence, there’s a clear technical reason to pay attention to the governance of the FSF: thousands of projects give them the right to relicense anything that “GPLv2-or-later” or “GPLv3-or-later”.
Incidentally, I think for this reason, it’s the wrong strategic move to simply abandon the FSF. While it’s not the end-all-be-all, the ability to define a putative GPLv4 may come in handy some day, and it would be bad if that power fell into the wrong hands (even worse hands than Stallman’s).
I think that is quite possibly the best point. The GPL is as good as it is because Stallman is notoriously obsessed with specifics of language and is obsessed with privacy and putting his money...
Incidentally, I think for this reason, it’s the wrong strategic move to simply abandon the FSF. While it’s not the end-all-be-all, the ability to define a putative GPLv4 may come in handy some day, and it would be bad if that power fell into the wrong hands (even worse hands than Stallman’s).
I think that is quite possibly the best point. The GPL is as good as it is because Stallman is notoriously obsessed with specifics of language and is obsessed with privacy and putting his money where his mouth is, better than most of us I'd wager. He comprehends the problem domain while being somewhat-uniquely in a position where he is basically unbribable from putting in loopholes and outs.
I'd absolutely want him having final say on future revisions of the GPL even if removed from all other capacities for this reason alone.
The report itself seems quite good (have not dove in all the way through though), although I do think it there are some points that are drastically overblown when taken out of context. On the whole though I think it's in the right place and my criticism is not a dismissal by any means.
It does irk me that in some places they'll link a cited study, but then not Stallman's denial. I'm sure it's in there somewhere, but it does make it harder to follow the thread.
I have a few counter concerns. First, even if you believe that RMS is the best man for the job, he is not going to be around forever. The long-term survival of the FSF depends on being it being...
I have a few counter concerns.
First, even if you believe that RMS is the best man for the job, he is not going to be around forever. The long-term survival of the FSF depends on being it being bus-proof.
Secondly, the use of copyleft licenses has plummeted since the mid-2000's, and the FSF has not risen to the challenge of convincing projects to use GPL licenses. These days, developers either want to give away their source code (MIT, zlib) or want protection above and beyond what even the AGPL promises (SSPL, BSL). Either way, where has RMS been during this decline?
What's more, there doesn't appear to be any guidance on what copyleft licenses can be used in app stores like the Apple App store, and there's quite a bit of FUD that suggests that GPL-flavored copyleft is practically unusable in those environments due to the obligations it places on the distributor. The fact that there is no clear answer - or even better, a purpose-built copyleft license for these environments which places the sole obligation on the developers - also makes me wonder what exactly he's been doing for the past decade and a half.
Finally, I seriously question RMS's judgement in not closing the network hole in the mainline GPLv3 license, instead leaving it for the far less common AGPL. He doesn't seem particularly open to appeasement, but the only other explanation I can think of is myopia - not understanding how digital distribution takes much of the teeth out of the GPL in our modern internet-connected era.
That one really went south. Did you see they opposing rants about an explicitly anti-capitalist FSF and then someone pasting the "24 gorillion dead no food" pasta in response?
discussion on Lobsters
That one really went south. Did you see they opposing rants about an explicitly anti-capitalist FSF and then someone pasting the "24 gorillion dead no food" pasta in response?
I don’t agree with Stallman about much, but I find it irritating that his technical role should be coming under review based on anything other than his technical behaviour.
I don’t agree with Stallman about much, but I find it irritating that his technical role should be coming under review based on anything other than his technical behaviour.
Is he in a technical role? My understanding is that the FSF is mainly involved in advocacy for, promotion of, and support for free software. None of that is particularly technical. Moreover,...
Is he in a technical role? My understanding is that the FSF is mainly involved in advocacy for, promotion of, and support for free software. None of that is particularly technical. Moreover, Stallman's work in particular has mainly been spearheading that advocacy and acting as a figurehead for the free software movement.
If even a small portion of this list of issues is true, I would consider him a poor fit for that sort of role. Making large portions of your target audience feel uncomfortable seems like a terrible idea for someone who is meant to encourage more people to be involved in the free software movement.
If his job were solely technical - say, working on GCC with no responsibilities at all in the way of mentorship, leadership, code review, or anything similar - then I would still struggle to work alongside him and would consider him more hindrance than help, but I could at least understand this argument. But that isn't the case, and his behaviour seems to be actively getting in the way of his work, and the work of the FSF in general.
I guess I see his work on architecting and enforcing the GPL to be a technical process. Law as code, in a sense. In any event, I don’t see how what this document alleges has to do with his job in...
I guess I see his work on architecting and enforcing the GPL to be a technical process. Law as code, in a sense.
In any event, I don’t see how what this document alleges has to do with his job in architecting and enforcing the GPL.
On top of this report not being about who is or is not qualified for a technical role (when it comes to licensing), this report isn't about the GPL at all. What this report does have are instances...
On top of this report not being about who is or is not qualified for a technical role (when it comes to licensing), this report isn't about the GPL at all.
What this report does have are instances where Stallman misbehaved in technical and professional settings, from others that have had to work with and around him.
There's plenty of reasons all throughout the report that cite the ways in which Stallman's influence created issues around the FSF. There's also a list of organization and foundations who have cut...
There's plenty of reasons all throughout the report that cite the ways in which Stallman's influence created issues around the FSF. There's also a list of organization and foundations who have cut ties with the FSF and GPL as a result.
If the goal of FSF and GPL is to ensure that only people that can overlook Stallman's bad influence and highly questionable morals will stick around, then I suppose his involvement is key. But if their goal is to spread GPL and FOSS out wide to more and more people, then there are quite a few reasons to question Stallman's involvement.
I wish more discussions of Mr. Stallman's leadership used your reasoning. Instead, they endlessly get dragged into flame wars over whether: The claims are true If true, do they matter Instead, the...
I wish more discussions of Mr. Stallman's leadership used your reasoning. Instead, they endlessly get dragged into flame wars over whether:
The claims are true
If true, do they matter
Instead, the better argument for ousting him is that he can't keep his mouth shut about off-topic controversial opinions and distracts from the core mission of the FSF.
Is it a technical role? He’s a member of the board of directors of an organization. That is a role traditionally mostly involving talking to other people. Being an asshole seems to be an...
Is it a technical role? He’s a member of the board of directors of an organization. That is a role traditionally mostly involving talking to other people. Being an asshole seems to be an impediment to that.
Seeing as he personally founded the FSF and has been an asshole for the entire 39 years of its existence yet is still unfortunately an enormously influential force in the open source world, I’m...
Being an asshole seems to be an impediment to that.
Seeing as he personally founded the FSF and has been an asshole for the entire 39 years of its existence yet is still unfortunately an enormously influential force in the open source world, I’m not sure if that’s true.
Why not? Both can be true at the same time. And to be honest, he hasn't done much recently, just a useless relic of the past spouting unpleasant nonesense. His presence will keep new, young,...
Why not? Both can be true at the same time. And to be honest, he hasn't done much recently, just a useless relic of the past spouting unpleasant nonesense. His presence will keep new, young, smart, and passionate contributors away.
I remember encountering a convincing argument that Stallman & the FSF became irrelevant for technical reasons during the last round of Stallmanite discussion. Instead, it always circles back to...
I remember encountering a convincing argument that Stallman & the FSF became irrelevant for technical reasons during the last round of Stallmanite discussion. Instead, it always circles back to shit-flinging about Mr. Stallman being a maladjusted nerd with opinions only found in maladjusted nerds.
I suggest you read some stuff. It is more than just maladjusted nerd: it is repeated and insistant statements and actions that are just not acceptable, despite people trying to correct him. He's...
I suggest you read some stuff. It is more than just maladjusted nerd: it is repeated and insistant statements and actions that are just not acceptable, despite people trying to correct him. He's been like this for years and he should know better by now, but he won't change.
In my opinion his role is more than just a technical one. He was/is the voice of GNU. But even if he wasn’t and it was just a purely technical role, why shouldn’t he be judged for things outside...
In my opinion his role is more than just a technical one. He was/is the voice of GNU. But even if he wasn’t and it was just a purely technical role, why shouldn’t he be judged for things outside of his technical abilities?
His actions have ramifications that need to be taken into account.
“Yeah, but he’s really good at coding,” isn’t a particularly strong defense.
(I’m not accusing you of supporting that position at all. Just using it as a general example.)
I find it upsetting that anyone would think that such a public role (and one of leadership) should not be subject to scrutiny for publicly holding and defending a morally objectionable viewpoint....
I find it upsetting that anyone would think that such a public role (and one of leadership) should not be subject to scrutiny for publicly holding and defending a morally objectionable viewpoint. I also find it upsetting that anyone in power can publicly make heinous statements and see so many discussions online where people jump to their defense or seemingly attempt to discredit or sideline conversations about the reprehensible things they have stated.
RMS is not the only person who's technically proficient. He's not a savant. He's not a savior. He's a man, and he's a man who holds some heinous opinions which he has stuck to and repeated in public despite countless folks trying to correct him. His very presence could easily discredit the FSF and the insistence that it shouldn't matter shows a disconnect from how many people in the world think. We can, and we should strive to be better. We should not sweep things like this under the rug, just because we are afraid of outside influences making things worse if this man is removed from power. This information deserves to be out there, and people should have the right to discuss it and share their opinion on it.
I wasn't sure about posting this because:
However, this report is very thorough.
I would also like to highlight a comment from the discussion on Lobsters as to why "the fight" over the leadership and direction of the Free Software Foundation could be considered important:
I think that is quite possibly the best point. The GPL is as good as it is because Stallman is notoriously obsessed with specifics of language and is obsessed with privacy and putting his money where his mouth is, better than most of us I'd wager. He comprehends the problem domain while being somewhat-uniquely in a position where he is basically unbribable from putting in loopholes and outs.
I'd absolutely want him having final say on future revisions of the GPL even if removed from all other capacities for this reason alone.
The report itself seems quite good (have not dove in all the way through though), although I do think it there are some points that are drastically overblown when taken out of context. On the whole though I think it's in the right place and my criticism is not a dismissal by any means.
It does irk me that in some places they'll link a cited study, but then not Stallman's denial. I'm sure it's in there somewhere, but it does make it harder to follow the thread.
I have a few counter concerns.
First, even if you believe that RMS is the best man for the job, he is not going to be around forever. The long-term survival of the FSF depends on being it being bus-proof.
Secondly, the use of copyleft licenses has plummeted since the mid-2000's, and the FSF has not risen to the challenge of convincing projects to use GPL licenses. These days, developers either want to give away their source code (MIT, zlib) or want protection above and beyond what even the AGPL promises (SSPL, BSL). Either way, where has RMS been during this decline?
What's more, there doesn't appear to be any guidance on what copyleft licenses can be used in app stores like the Apple App store, and there's quite a bit of FUD that suggests that GPL-flavored copyleft is practically unusable in those environments due to the obligations it places on the distributor. The fact that there is no clear answer - or even better, a purpose-built copyleft license for these environments which places the sole obligation on the developers - also makes me wonder what exactly he's been doing for the past decade and a half.
Finally, I seriously question RMS's judgement in not closing the network hole in the mainline GPLv3 license, instead leaving it for the far less common AGPL. He doesn't seem particularly open to appeasement, but the only other explanation I can think of is myopia - not understanding how digital distribution takes much of the teeth out of the GPL in our modern internet-connected era.
I saw it the other day on Mastodon. Based on past discussions about RMS on other platforms I decided to stay out of it.
That one really went south. Did you see they opposing rants about an explicitly anti-capitalist FSF and then someone pasting the "24 gorillion dead no food" pasta in response?
I don’t agree with Stallman about much, but I find it irritating that his technical role should be coming under review based on anything other than his technical behaviour.
Is he in a technical role? My understanding is that the FSF is mainly involved in advocacy for, promotion of, and support for free software. None of that is particularly technical. Moreover, Stallman's work in particular has mainly been spearheading that advocacy and acting as a figurehead for the free software movement.
If even a small portion of this list of issues is true, I would consider him a poor fit for that sort of role. Making large portions of your target audience feel uncomfortable seems like a terrible idea for someone who is meant to encourage more people to be involved in the free software movement.
If his job were solely technical - say, working on GCC with no responsibilities at all in the way of mentorship, leadership, code review, or anything similar - then I would still struggle to work alongside him and would consider him more hindrance than help, but I could at least understand this argument. But that isn't the case, and his behaviour seems to be actively getting in the way of his work, and the work of the FSF in general.
I guess I see his work on architecting and enforcing the GPL to be a technical process. Law as code, in a sense.
In any event, I don’t see how what this document alleges has to do with his job in architecting and enforcing the GPL.
Because… it doesn’t? It has to do with his role on the board of directors of the fsf?
On top of this report not being about who is or is not qualified for a technical role (when it comes to licensing), this report isn't about the GPL at all.
What this report does have are instances where Stallman misbehaved in technical and professional settings, from others that have had to work with and around him.
Kinda my point. What does it have to do with what RMS does for the FSF? Which is basically the GPL.
There's plenty of reasons all throughout the report that cite the ways in which Stallman's influence created issues around the FSF. There's also a list of organization and foundations who have cut ties with the FSF and GPL as a result.
If the goal of FSF and GPL is to ensure that only people that can overlook Stallman's bad influence and highly questionable morals will stick around, then I suppose his involvement is key. But if their goal is to spread GPL and FOSS out wide to more and more people, then there are quite a few reasons to question Stallman's involvement.
I wish more discussions of Mr. Stallman's leadership used your reasoning. Instead, they endlessly get dragged into flame wars over whether:
Instead, the better argument for ousting him is that he can't keep his mouth shut about off-topic controversial opinions and distracts from the core mission of the FSF.
Is it a technical role? He’s a member of the board of directors of an organization. That is a role traditionally mostly involving talking to other people. Being an asshole seems to be an impediment to that.
Seeing as he personally founded the FSF and has been an asshole for the entire 39 years of its existence yet is still unfortunately an enormously influential force in the open source world, I’m not sure if that’s true.
Why not? Both can be true at the same time. And to be honest, he hasn't done much recently, just a useless relic of the past spouting unpleasant nonesense. His presence will keep new, young, smart, and passionate contributors away.
I remember encountering a convincing argument that Stallman & the FSF became irrelevant for technical reasons during the last round of Stallmanite discussion. Instead, it always circles back to shit-flinging about Mr. Stallman being a maladjusted nerd with opinions only found in maladjusted nerds.
I suggest you read some stuff. It is more than just maladjusted nerd: it is repeated and insistant statements and actions that are just not acceptable, despite people trying to correct him. He's been like this for years and he should know better by now, but he won't change.
That's a textbook symptom of a maladjusted nerd.
In my opinion his role is more than just a technical one. He was/is the voice of GNU. But even if he wasn’t and it was just a purely technical role, why shouldn’t he be judged for things outside of his technical abilities?
His actions have ramifications that need to be taken into account.
“Yeah, but he’s really good at coding,” isn’t a particularly strong defense.
(I’m not accusing you of supporting that position at all. Just using it as a general example.)
I find it upsetting that anyone would think that such a public role (and one of leadership) should not be subject to scrutiny for publicly holding and defending a morally objectionable viewpoint. I also find it upsetting that anyone in power can publicly make heinous statements and see so many discussions online where people jump to their defense or seemingly attempt to discredit or sideline conversations about the reprehensible things they have stated.
RMS is not the only person who's technically proficient. He's not a savant. He's not a savior. He's a man, and he's a man who holds some heinous opinions which he has stuck to and repeated in public despite countless folks trying to correct him. His very presence could easily discredit the FSF and the insistence that it shouldn't matter shows a disconnect from how many people in the world think. We can, and we should strive to be better. We should not sweep things like this under the rug, just because we are afraid of outside influences making things worse if this man is removed from power. This information deserves to be out there, and people should have the right to discuss it and share their opinion on it.
That doesn't mean the majority is correct or incorrect.