Joint Statement on the GNU Project

Yes, you are dramatically misreading the situation.

I've been in attendance at an RMS talk (HOPE 2016) when he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with. I saw how many women immediately got up and left in response to that, and I don't blame them for doing so. I would've done the same, if I'd felt myself to be one of the people Stallman made a joke about maybe wanting to fuck. (And, if I hadn't thought it might be worth sticking around for the Q&A and a chance at a callout. Some goober ended up yanking the mike cord, which was fine. A lot of people thanked me for saying what I did before he got to me.)

How likely do you think it is that those women had any inclination to contribute to free software after an experience like that? How likely do you think it is that I did - knowing that to do so would associate me with people who had no problem with a figurehead whose behavior was so completely out of step with modern mores, and so discouraging to such a wide segment of the community?

Since then, I've corresponded with others more familiar than I with RMS, and from that correspondence I've learned that this kind of thing was in no way out of character for him - I don't know firsthand, because that was the last RMS talk I chose to attend or will attend in future, and decided no longer to donate my time, money, or support to any FSF project for as long as he remained chairman. I don't want to be associated with behavior like that, and I most certainly don't want to enable it - both for its own sake, and because where the culture tolerates something like that, there's reason to suspect it will tolerate worse, besides.

I'm glad that so many people who have such a strong hand in making FSF and the GNU Project what it is today - far more of a hand than RMS has had in many years now - have chosen to speak so well on the subject. I know their statement has elicited a torrent of garbage. I hope they won't let it distract them from the fact that they're doing the right thing.

Naturally GNU and free software movement is intertwined with politics, but as someone who remember the time when people debated if they were communists I remember the answers. When Creative commons came out with the No Commercial variant we saw the same discussions pop up, and again with the same answer. They said GNU and the free software movement was not communist, socialists, libertarians, left or right. It was a new political movement based on the four software freedoms, pulling activists from both side of the political spectrum. You could have multiple project leaders, including RMS, in the same room and have as larger political diversity as there were people. The one thing that united them is that they believed in and advocated for free software.

The reasons some people are now getting upset is because that answer seems to have change in very recent time. It is no longer a new political movement that recruits activists from all sides, nor is acceptable any more that there is political diversity among contributors. In that environment I am not suprised that RMS do not fit with his unconventional view on multiple political topics. He is neither a true democrat nor a true republican, and if GNU want one of those then indeed there need to be a discussion for a new leader.

"anyone can be made to look bad" is an opinion that basically throws the human capacity for discernment under the bus, and if humans can't discern things then why bother with anything?

No; rms is gross and creepy because rms is gross and creepy. Not because some conspiracy has worked to make him look like he is.

> Perhaps, but we do not know how much better it could be today if potential contributors were not dissuaded by the politics and behavior of the existing participants.

Do you know how many potential contributors you'd lose by forcing adherence to liberal Californian politics? Most of the world does not adhere to them, even to the less objectionable ones.

If my feelings are an indicator that mirrors others, I agree that it will likely fracture GNU. Especially if the new leadership cannot recreate the same sense of ideology, purpose, and deeper change that RMS stirred up with his writings.

The GNU Manifesto (written by Richard Stallman) was one of the biggest change-my-life documents for me. Probably it was just a matter of timing and luck that it happened to be that document, but it was. It exposed me to new ideas that I could relate to, and really made me think in a new way, a way that is generous and creative towards other people, and that has stayed with me for decades since. It went beyond mere software; my relationships, and the way I treat people, were affected for the better as well.

And so I've long been very sympathatic to the FSF/GNU projects and cause.

I would have been proud to contribute and operate a project under the GNU banner, and nearly did on several occasions.

Since recent announcements, I'm starting to feel different about the FSF/GNU projects. My feelings about the GNU Manifesto and RMS's activist writings have not changed much - there are good and profound ideas in there.

But I no longer envisage myself wanting to contribute under the FSF/GNU umbrella, since the last few weeks. I expect there are quite a few people who will feel the same "change" of enthusiasm.

The joint statement is very short and doesn't say much. But it says enough, in that second paragraph about RMS, to make me feel wary of wanting to work with any of the people whose names are listed below it.

> The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom.

The undersigned have shown, with crystal clarity, that they cannot be trusted to defend everyone's freedom, since they blatantly have chosen to not even try to do so in this case.

And so we need a new movement, to replace GNU.

Ideally, one that everyone can actually trust to defend their freedom.