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 the 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 the 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 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.
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.
Firstly, Stallman's role goes beyond architecting and enforcing the GPL - he is currently the head of the GNU project, and on the board of directors of the FSF. So even if nothing in this document...
Firstly, Stallman's role goes beyond architecting and enforcing the GPL - he is currently the head of the GNU project, and on the board of directors of the FSF. So even if nothing in this document related to his work on the GPL, it is still very relevant for his work leading to different organisations, and his role as a figurehead for the free software movement in general.
Secondly, I assume that even in the role of architect of the GPL, his work at this point will involve plenty of delegation, negotiation, discussion, and leadership. I think there are issues when we try and define purely technical roles, as if we could somehow separate technical skills from the ability to communicate healthily with other people, but let's assume that's the case: even then, he is not in a technical role.
Which again brings us to the point I was making: if his role is predominantly bringing others alongside him, training and supporting others in the campaign for free software, working with others on large projects (be that software or legal documents), leadership, and his status as figurehead of the movement, then he is extremely poorly suited to that role.
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 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.
There is a (hopefully just small but vocal) subset of people on Tildes who seem to hate the idea of anyone experiencing consequences for behavior that impacts people other than white men. To them,...
There is a (hopefully just small but vocal) subset of people on Tildes who seem to hate the idea of anyone experiencing consequences for behavior that impacts people other than white men. To them, any amount of sexual misconduct or advocacy for it is inconsequential if the individual has sufficient technical skills, and any attempt to address sexism, racism, queerphobia, or other similar issues in fields where they have traditionally run rampant, like tech, is wrong simply because it disrupts their status quo. Whenever a public figure even tangentially connected to tech does or says something horrific, there's always at least one or two commenters who insist that this stuff shouldn't matter.
Yea I'm aware. I stayed out of this conversation on other platforms because I know there's no reaching most of these folks. But there was something about framing this as "irritating" that was,...
Yea I'm aware. I stayed out of this conversation on other platforms because I know there's no reaching most of these folks. But there was something about framing this as "irritating" that was, well, irritating to me enough to finally leave some small comment on the matter.
His technical leadership leaves much to be desired, too. The whole GPLv3 transition was a mess that some corners of the ecosystem are still set back from. And Stallman's direct meddling has...
His technical leadership leaves much to be desired, too. The whole GPLv3 transition was a mess that some corners of the ecosystem are still set back from. And Stallman's direct meddling has hamstrung a lot of useful progress in GCC as he used his influence to prevent any sort of internal compiler state from being accessed outside of GCC, something that has attracted a lot of developers and attention to open source compilers not under his control.
Under his watch, GPL usage has declined severely. The FSF is failing to adapt to new technological landscapes with a leader who still browses the web by reading through HTML as plain text that he fetches by sending specially crafted emails.
Not only is he an ineffective leader, as others have mentioned, his technical knowledge is bitrotting and actively holding GNU projects back.
How bad would Stallman's behavior have to get for you to think it matters to his position of leadership at the FSF? I assume you must have a line somewhere, despite this comment. Would you support...
How bad would Stallman's behavior have to get for you to think it matters to his position of leadership at the FSF? I assume you must have a line somewhere, despite this comment. Would you support his removal if he were convicted of rape? Of possessing CSAM?
Soft skills (and to be clear, I'm inappropriately lumping "basic human decency and social skills" under soft skills) are just as valid and important to have as hard skills. Stallman's lack of soft...
Soft skills (and to be clear, I'm inappropriately lumping "basic human decency and social skills" under soft skills) are just as valid and important to have as hard skills. Stallman's lack of soft skills has been soaking up time and energy from the people around him for decades as they try to get ahead of him and put out fires. And that same lack of "soft skills" has driven off countless contributors, many only after clashing with him, but even more who were turned off open source at the outset by this weird dude who really wants to make it clear that it's okay to be attracted to 13 year olds. That is offputting to most. Enough to never engage with open source. Again calling back to the report, only 3% of the open source community is made up of women vs 23% in the wider software development industry. That's a lot of technical skill that's lost and untapped due to an unwise choice of leader.
To be clear though, there are interconnected issues driving skill away from open source. It's not just Stallman, it's a community that is willing to overlook things, from "unrelated" opinions to outright asshattery as long as they write good code. There is a point where the people driven off by a maintainer's behavior are a loss greater than the technical value provided by that maintainer.
As someone who wasn't paying attention when this happened (probably b/c too young), do you have an article recommendation that spills this tea and/or net lore?
The whole GPLv3 transition was a mess that some corners of the ecosystem are still set back from.
As someone who wasn't paying attention when this happened (probably b/c too young), do you have an article recommendation that spills this tea and/or net lore?
I must have had some at one point, I was also too young to care about audio plugin compatibility at the time. Not quite sure where the center of discussion was back then, Slashdot? LWN? Just...
Exemplary
I must have had some at one point, I was also too young to care about audio plugin compatibility at the time. Not quite sure where the center of discussion was back then, Slashdot? LWN? Just mailing lists? But I'll do some digging.
It stems from the fact that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible. While some software is licensed as "GPLv2-or-later," not all is, and software that can't resolve their license conflicts can't legally be used together, even software at arm's length like plugins and the software they're plugging into.* This happened in the professional audio landscape on Linux, and splintered an already small niche into mutually incompatible islands.
While I'm pretty sure my brain didn't just make this up, many, many links have rotted and the Wayback Machine is a bit flaky at the moment. Keeping my tabs open overnight, and in the mean time here's a nice collection of
GPL incompatibility headaches, both modern and historic.
In more recent years, ignoring this kind of incompatibility detonated one open source sub community. After years of mixing GPL code with proprietary software in relative peace, one prolific developer DMCA'd the entire thing into the ground when the community found out that Mojang had acquired the server years earlier and that they'd been doing free work for them. ( http://rdwl.xyz/blog/the-bukkit-implosion/ )
This article has a section that mentions some of the issues this splintering caused at the time:
The official stance is that projects shouldn't be v2-only, they should always be v2-or-later. I'll let you try to persuade Linux to switch. Oh, and good luck with PDF readers, too; the only open source PDF readers at the moment are based on xpdf, which is GPLv2-only. The FSF is frantically trying to write a new PDF library to get around this limitation, and licensing it as GPLv3-or-later.
Here's a talk from 2013 by Rob Landley I've seen referenced twice about the issues it caused the ecosystem as a whole, with a few specific examples:
- Copyleft is dying.
- GPLv2 was category killer, synonymous with copyleft.
- terminal node of a directed graph of license convertability
- universal receiver
- A license was either GPL-compatible or it wasn't.
- GPLv3 broke "the" GPL into incompatible forks that can't share code.
- Linux and Samba can't share code, implement 2 ends of same protocol.
- QEMU caught between GPLv2 Linux drivers and GPLv3 binutils/gdb
processor instruction set descriptions. Can't take code from both.
- "GPLv2 or later" give to both but can't take code from _either_one_.
- FSF expected universal compliance, but hijacked lifeboat clause when
boat wasn't sinking. GPLv2 not rendered unenforceable, they just
pulled a Darth Vader "I am altering the bargain, pray I don't alter
it any further." And then shipped The Phantom Meanance.
- This has poisoned copyleft. GPL use declining. Multiple GPLv3 successor
projects (http://xkcd.com/927).
- The one thing GPLv3 achieved was undermining GPLv2.
- fragmentation only increasing
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2905643/posts [editor's note - dead link, not on wayback]
https://lwn.net/Articles/538839/
* An aside on linking
Someone who's more knowledgeable might want to chime in here, but something I've seen recurring in my research is people questioning whether or not this is actually the case. According to the FSF, linking to any GPL library creates a combined work that must also be licensed under the GPL. This applies to static linking, where compiled code from the library is baked into the compiled code of your program, and dynamic linking where they are compiled separately, stored separately, and only meet once your computer runs the program and the linker dynamically loads both chunks of code into memory.
But the FSF are the only ones making that claim. That particular point has never been tested in court. If the two aren't combined until they're run on the user's computer as-needed and are never distributed or stored in their combined format... well, if you read into that Minecraft story above, that sounds awfully similar to the singing and dancing that Spigot does to marry GPL and proprietary code.
If the FSF is wrong on this point, then it's entirely possible that the audio plugin case was never an actual legal issue, just an invented one. But this is almost definitely something that would need a court to settle.
Sorry for the formatting here, a lot of small things are breaking in weird ways, from spacing between paragraphs to links stubbornly refusing to be linkable, but I've tried to neaten things up as best I can.
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.
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 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.
Without getting into a semantic discussion, I think calling him a maladjusted nerd kind of excuses or lessens the severity of his behaviour when he is an adult that can and should learn from his...
Without getting into a semantic discussion, I think calling him a maladjusted nerd kind of excuses or lessens the severity of his behaviour when he is an adult that can and should learn from his mistakes, nerd or not.
@Deimos I'm a maladjusted nerd and therefore am exempt from bans for breaking the rules on Tildes, thank you. But seriously, if you act like a rabid animal then you get caged and muzzled like a...
@Deimos I'm a maladjusted nerd and therefore am exempt from bans for breaking the rules on Tildes, thank you.
But seriously, if you act like a rabid animal then you get caged and muzzled like a rabid animal, because the alternative is to let everyone be mauled by unrestrained rabid animals. And no, neurodiversity nor mental illness are not an exception here. They might give you leeway in being slow to learn, but ultimately following the rules is a condition of entry. If you are incapable of learning to follow the rules, then no hard feelings but you're not allowed here. That's what rules are. Otherwise they're just suggestions.
Ewww. I had respect for Stallman until I started reading through this report. I had no idea this guy was an advocate for rape, pedophilia, beastiality, etc.
Ewww. I had respect for Stallman until I started reading through this report.
I had no idea this guy was an advocate for rape, pedophilia, beastiality, etc.
Disclaimer: I skimmed it, did not read all of it, it's too long and in this context reading a few blocks of citations in the main article and in the topical collections from previous years seemed...
Disclaimer: I skimmed it, did not read all of it, it's too long and in this context reading a few blocks of citations in the main article and in the topical collections from previous years seemed good enough.
On one hand it cites opinions that I'm entirely opposed to. On the other hand it also cites opinions that are not only benign but even reasonable, and it does so in a way that makes me angry and entirely unwilling to be in any way connected to the authors.
I don't entirely agree with @unkz saying that RMS's role is entirely technical and should be judged only on that - his role is obviously also representative (he's regularly giving lectures, plus it happens implicitly by him being a well-known person who has always shared his opinions both related and unrelated to free software online), and it makes sense that he is judged based if not on how well he fulfills that role, then at least based on how much he possibly hurts the foundation.
However, this report does not seem to be written as an unemotional judgement of his work. It feels more like an attack on Stallman's character.
I don't like that in general, but I would still not be entirely opposed to it if it had enough merit. I don't think it does, however.
For example there is a table that lists Stallman's comments on various controversial topics in up to the last 20 years. Some of the numbers seem horrific, but that is because the list puts together comments that truly are very hard to defend with comments that may go against current cultural wave in the US and western Europe, but are otherwise entirely reasonable.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that in most situations we should make a distinction between a 10 year old (a child) and a 17 year old (a teenager or adolescent). In fact, in the context of online debates I agree that the frequent use of "literal children" to describe 16 or 17 years old teenagers is usually a dishonest manipulative tactic. His comments on the topic are often not made in controversial contexts like sexual consent, many are just valid observations. This is a general trend that applies on more sections of the report.
Even if I agree with many of their points I cannot ever support someone who's trying to do a character assassination based on this. It disgusts me.
A general side note:
When we judge the merit of a person, how much they deserve praise or fame or contempt and punishment, we usually (among other things) consider on one hand their achievements and on the other their harms, whether to society, to us or to some other groups. In the last two decades or so western society has shifted to judging harms much more harshly than it used to - that much I think is undeniable, there's been a sort of a revision of opinions on historical figures like Winston Churchill for example. The controversial question is whether this is a good thing or not. Unsurprisingly, I don't think it is, I think we've gone way too far in judging (potential) harms over achievements and this report is one of the manifestations of that.
Whenever I see a group of people trying to oust giants who built the field that they're in based on this, all it usually does is make me sad and hope that the pendulum swings back soon.
And that is despite the fact that I do believe Stallman might not be the best person for the job and that FSF should adapt and modernize.
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 the 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 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.
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?
Firstly, Stallman's role goes beyond architecting and enforcing the GPL - he is currently the head of the GNU project, and on the board of directors of the FSF. So even if nothing in this document related to his work on the GPL, it is still very relevant for his work leading to different organisations, and his role as a figurehead for the free software movement in general.
Secondly, I assume that even in the role of architect of the GPL, his work at this point will involve plenty of delegation, negotiation, discussion, and leadership. I think there are issues when we try and define purely technical roles, as if we could somehow separate technical skills from the ability to communicate healthily with other people, but let's assume that's the case: even then, he is not in a technical role.
Which again brings us to the point I was making: if his role is predominantly bringing others alongside him, training and supporting others in the campaign for free software, working with others on large projects (be that software or legal documents), leadership, and his status as figurehead of the movement, then he is extremely poorly suited to that role.
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 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.
There is a (hopefully just small but vocal) subset of people on Tildes who seem to hate the idea of anyone experiencing consequences for behavior that impacts people other than white men. To them, any amount of sexual misconduct or advocacy for it is inconsequential if the individual has sufficient technical skills, and any attempt to address sexism, racism, queerphobia, or other similar issues in fields where they have traditionally run rampant, like tech, is wrong simply because it disrupts their status quo. Whenever a public figure even tangentially connected to tech does or says something horrific, there's always at least one or two commenters who insist that this stuff shouldn't matter.
Yea I'm aware. I stayed out of this conversation on other platforms because I know there's no reaching most of these folks. But there was something about framing this as "irritating" that was, well, irritating to me enough to finally leave some small comment on the matter.
Oh absolutely agreed; I replied to your comment more out of similar irritation with such comments than to provide you any new information.
That doesn't mean the majority is correct or incorrect.
It's not a matter of correctness, it's a matter of significance.
His technical leadership leaves much to be desired, too. The whole GPLv3 transition was a mess that some corners of the ecosystem are still set back from. And Stallman's direct meddling has hamstrung a lot of useful progress in GCC as he used his influence to prevent any sort of internal compiler state from being accessed outside of GCC, something that has attracted a lot of developers and attention to open source compilers not under his control.
Under his watch, GPL usage has declined severely. The FSF is failing to adapt to new technological landscapes with a leader who still browses the web by reading through HTML as plain text that he fetches by sending specially crafted emails.
Not only is he an ineffective leader, as others have mentioned, his technical knowledge is bitrotting and actively holding GNU projects back.
That’s great criticism, and the only sort that I feel is valid.
How bad would Stallman's behavior have to get for you to think it matters to his position of leadership at the FSF? I assume you must have a line somewhere, despite this comment. Would you support his removal if he were convicted of rape? Of possessing CSAM?
Soft skills (and to be clear, I'm inappropriately lumping "basic human decency and social skills" under soft skills) are just as valid and important to have as hard skills. Stallman's lack of soft skills has been soaking up time and energy from the people around him for decades as they try to get ahead of him and put out fires. And that same lack of "soft skills" has driven off countless contributors, many only after clashing with him, but even more who were turned off open source at the outset by this weird dude who really wants to make it clear that it's okay to be attracted to 13 year olds. That is offputting to most. Enough to never engage with open source. Again calling back to the report, only 3% of the open source community is made up of women vs 23% in the wider software development industry. That's a lot of technical skill that's lost and untapped due to an unwise choice of leader.
To be clear though, there are interconnected issues driving skill away from open source. It's not just Stallman, it's a community that is willing to overlook things, from "unrelated" opinions to outright asshattery as long as they write good code. There is a point where the people driven off by a maintainer's behavior are a loss greater than the technical value provided by that maintainer.
As someone who wasn't paying attention when this happened (probably b/c too young), do you have an article recommendation that spills this tea and/or net lore?
I must have had some at one point, I was also too young to care about audio plugin compatibility at the time. Not quite sure where the center of discussion was back then, Slashdot? LWN? Just mailing lists? But I'll do some digging.
It stems from the fact that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible. While some software is licensed as "GPLv2-or-later," not all is, and software that can't resolve their license conflicts can't legally be used together, even software at arm's length like plugins and the software they're plugging into.* This happened in the professional audio landscape on Linux, and splintered an already small niche into mutually incompatible islands.
While I'm pretty sure my brain didn't just make this up, many, many links have rotted and the Wayback Machine is a bit flaky at the moment. Keeping my tabs open overnight, and in the mean time here's a nice collection of
GPL incompatibility headaches, both modern and historic.
In more recent years, ignoring this kind of incompatibility detonated one open source sub community. After years of mixing GPL code with proprietary software in relative peace, one prolific developer DMCA'd the entire thing into the ground when the community found out that Mojang had acquired the server years earlier and that they'd been doing free work for them. ( http://rdwl.xyz/blog/the-bukkit-implosion/ )This article has a section that mentions some of the issues this splintering caused at the time:
Here's a talk from 2013 by Rob Landley I've seen referenced twice about the issues it caused the ecosystem as a whole, with a few specific examples:
* An aside on linking
Someone who's more knowledgeable might want to chime in here, but something I've seen recurring in my research is people questioning whether or not this is actually the case. According to the FSF, linking to any GPL library creates a combined work that must also be licensed under the GPL. This applies to static linking, where compiled code from the library is baked into the compiled code of your program, and dynamic linking where they are compiled separately, stored separately, and only meet once your computer runs the program and the linker dynamically loads both chunks of code into memory.But the FSF are the only ones making that claim. That particular point has never been tested in court. If the two aren't combined until they're run on the user's computer as-needed and are never distributed or stored in their combined format... well, if you read into that Minecraft story above, that sounds awfully similar to the singing and dancing that Spigot does to marry GPL and proprietary code.
If the FSF is wrong on this point, then it's entirely possible that the audio plugin case was never an actual legal issue, just an invented one. But this is almost definitely something that would need a court to settle.
Sorry for the formatting here, a lot of small things are breaking in weird ways, from spacing between paragraphs to links stubbornly refusing to be linkable, but I've tried to neaten things up as best I can.
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.
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 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.
Without getting into a semantic discussion, I think calling him a maladjusted nerd kind of excuses or lessens the severity of his behaviour when he is an adult that can and should learn from his mistakes, nerd or not.
@Deimos I'm a maladjusted nerd and therefore am exempt from bans for breaking the rules on Tildes, thank you.
But seriously, if you act like a rabid animal then you get caged and muzzled like a rabid animal, because the alternative is to let everyone be mauled by unrestrained rabid animals. And no, neurodiversity nor mental illness are not an exception here. They might give you leeway in being slow to learn, but ultimately following the rules is a condition of entry. If you are incapable of learning to follow the rules, then no hard feelings but you're not allowed here. That's what rules are. Otherwise they're just suggestions.
Being a rabid animal and not shutting up one's stupid opinions are too different for your analogy to work.
Ewww. I had respect for Stallman until I started reading through this report.
I had no idea this guy was an advocate for rape, pedophilia, beastiality, etc.
Disclaimer: I skimmed it, did not read all of it, it's too long and in this context reading a few blocks of citations in the main article and in the topical collections from previous years seemed good enough.
On one hand it cites opinions that I'm entirely opposed to. On the other hand it also cites opinions that are not only benign but even reasonable, and it does so in a way that makes me angry and entirely unwilling to be in any way connected to the authors.
I don't entirely agree with @unkz saying that RMS's role is entirely technical and should be judged only on that - his role is obviously also representative (he's regularly giving lectures, plus it happens implicitly by him being a well-known person who has always shared his opinions both related and unrelated to free software online), and it makes sense that he is judged based if not on how well he fulfills that role, then at least based on how much he possibly hurts the foundation.
However, this report does not seem to be written as an unemotional judgement of his work. It feels more like an attack on Stallman's character.
I don't like that in general, but I would still not be entirely opposed to it if it had enough merit. I don't think it does, however.
For example there is a table that lists Stallman's comments on various controversial topics in up to the last 20 years. Some of the numbers seem horrific, but that is because the list puts together comments that truly are very hard to defend with comments that may go against current cultural wave in the US and western Europe, but are otherwise entirely reasonable.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that in most situations we should make a distinction between a 10 year old (a child) and a 17 year old (a teenager or adolescent). In fact, in the context of online debates I agree that the frequent use of "literal children" to describe 16 or 17 years old teenagers is usually a dishonest manipulative tactic. His comments on the topic are often not made in controversial contexts like sexual consent, many are just valid observations. This is a general trend that applies on more sections of the report.
Even if I agree with many of their points I cannot ever support someone who's trying to do a character assassination based on this. It disgusts me.
A general side note:
When we judge the merit of a person, how much they deserve praise or fame or contempt and punishment, we usually (among other things) consider on one hand their achievements and on the other their harms, whether to society, to us or to some other groups. In the last two decades or so western society has shifted to judging harms much more harshly than it used to - that much I think is undeniable, there's been a sort of a revision of opinions on historical figures like Winston Churchill for example. The controversial question is whether this is a good thing or not. Unsurprisingly, I don't think it is, I think we've gone way too far in judging (potential) harms over achievements and this report is one of the manifestations of that.
Whenever I see a group of people trying to oust giants who built the field that they're in based on this, all it usually does is make me sad and hope that the pendulum swings back soon.
And that is despite the fact that I do believe Stallman might not be the best person for the job and that FSF should adapt and modernize.