Live data from Hacker News

John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

social.librem.one

311–320 of 431 posts

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#311
post #81

We almost Linus Torwalds because of the cancel culture, would be a big loss to lose RMS because he is no longer good PR to have him, bonus points if some big business like Google or Red Hat could grab the leadership of FSF and GNU. There was a few days back a post for people to support RMS and I admit I did not put my name on the list because i am afraid this could affect my future, cancel culture could get worse and…

Well the difference is that Torvalds remains competent? Easy example: Stallman's idealism is why LLVM is now the academics favoured compiler to work on (i.e. no plugins for GCC) More human example: Someone I know who works in the GNU ecosystem on a reasonably major project mentioned that rms was cordial until he found out that this maintainer had children. And this was in response to someone handing already GPL code…

Any proof that LLVM is chosen now on most universities? Because I also have anecdotes where I was offered a job to work on GCC for a specific hardware architecture and bring improvements. Though I would be more interested on what compiler or license brings the most real value to the society and not which ones brings more money to a small group of mega rich guys.

Why not credit GPL or RMS for the Linux success over BSD ? There are many projects using BSD but still a giant number of companies and projects still use the "evil, cancerous" GPL project when they could use BSD and be selfish.

Maybe open source will win over free software but that this will not prove the free software movement wrong, will prove that money and greed will win as always.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did he do in the past 15 years outside of starting petty feuds that nobody cares about (the Linux name debacle) and being a horrible public speaker (there's heaps of stories of him being a dickhead to convention organizers, other convention guests and in general not really keeping any check on what he's even getting hired for)? Like, I recognize that what he did back in the 80s matters, but somewhere around the…

>What did he do in the past 15 years outside of starting petty feuds that nobody cares about (the Linux name debacle) and being a horrible public speaker (there's heaps of stories of him being a dickhead to convention organizers, other convention guests and in general not really keeping any check on what he's even getting hired for)? For one he managed to keep the whole GNU project true to its values by being someone…

> For one he managed to keep the whole GNU project true to its values by being someone people listen on the subject. How many other people do you know you can guarantee not to "monetize" and sell out such a huge project to a highest bidder in the meantime?

Quite a lot of them actually. In a sense, that is the big advantage that free software (but really the copyleft, since let's be honest that's Stallmans most meaningful contribution to the current ecosystem that everyone who does use FOSS uses) offers.

If someone ends up being a malicious, self-serving actor who sells out their project to the highest bidder, the copyleft is there to ensure that even if the copyright is signed away using an CAA (which if you want to argue about that, I would recommend you don't do it in a thread involving the GNU/FSF since they have notoriously bad and outdated CAA systems from what I heard), you can still keep that project going.

From projects such as Emby getting forked to Jellyfin, from Owncloud to Nextcloud, from the long history of adblockers getting sold to big corporations and then other maintainers stepping in to fork them back; THAT is the big strength of FOSS and copyleft. The idea that a sufficiently big and developed project can never truly "die", even when it changes hands. Sure the road is rocky sometimes (ffmpeg vs avconv was a case of maintainer drama that led to forks and eventually withered away), but that is what makes it worth it in the end.

None of that really falls back on Stallman's seemingly singular attempt to claim ownership on the entirety of FOSS. It does on the countless developers, project maintainers and the like who don't sell out and in the event that one does, that their damage is limited.

> You do realise that his role is not so much being a coder nor even a manager, but being what in business is sometimes called "a visionary". Thankfully there are enough coders and managers involved to have GNU and Foss going. The value of Stallman in the 80s and earlier was not just in the code he wrote but the ideas he managed to implement in our collective consciousness by doing that. Now more than ever we need someone we can count on to offer advice and leadership that has no agenda other than the original values.

Except he's also pretty much *the* public speaker for the FSF and their main PR person. And at that role he is just an objective failure. There is a constant stream of PR disasters. I am by no means a PR person, but you don't have to be an expert at something to note when someone is doing something really wrong.

We don't need Stallman anymore. There's plenty of great voices and developers in Free Software. Stallman is what, 68? He's past retirement age in my country. He won't be around forever. If anything, we should be looking to successors for him. Both on the PR and the visionary end. Stallman should have been put on a backseat by the FSF years ago. Instead, the organization has turned itself into a bloated singularity around the opinions of one man, backed up by a not insignificant amount of Free Software projects to give it weight.

> What is it that he actually said that was so "horrible"? Are you sure you are actually talking about what he said or have your opinions been formed by lies? Read this and tell me what is so horrible in his actual stance on the subject: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-Web

Redefining sexual assault in a way that would exclude many victims of sexual assault, reiterating his own stance that he thinks the age of consent is meaningless. Just about the only thing the media got wrong was because Vice (which yeah, is a shitty outlet) went for a cheap headline that most news sites copied. I have linked below for you the original email exchanges if you want to check them.[1]

> Please do enlighten me on what Stallman's stance on pedophilia is? But please use actual text written by him (not ripped out of context) rather than he said she said.

He's since walked these back as stated before, but here's the two biggest ones: [2][3]

[1]: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-0913201914205...

[2]: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...

[3]: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_Janua...

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#313
post #166

I'm creating a throwaway that I hope won't irk dang. If this breaks the rules, I'm sorry and I'll stop. Richard Stallman single-handedly created the free software movement, and he's the reason we all have jobs. Google and Facebook might not have been possible in a world where you couldn't spin up a server for free and compile code without paying a license. Richard Stallman has said some sexist and edgy things. He als…

Stallman is not the pillar things are build on. Yes, he's had a monumental impact on the software world, but it's a mistake to bind the concept of Free Software to him and pretend it needs him personally to be involved. It doesn't, and hasn't for a long time. Today , it's likely better off without him involved at high level, if the past decade of the FSF is anything to go by. And it's not that we "live in a world whe…

To be fair, he was only re-appointed for a short while before he was cancelled. We don't even know what his plans are.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called pirating, now. I think Stallman contributed a lot to keep the sharing economy legal.

No it's not, sharing the source code of stuff you create yourself with others is not 'pirating', it basn't then and it isn't now (we're talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9_track_tape here)

You are correct if you're only talking about software created by _yourself_. However, most of the software I got on 9-track tapes were collective works, with the usual case being that the copyright owner was the employer of the people who actually wrote the software.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#315

We almost Linus Torwalds because of the cancel culture, would be a big loss to lose RMS because he is no longer good PR to have him, bonus points if some big business like Google or Red Hat could grab the leadership of FSF and GNU. There was a few days back a post for people to support RMS and I admit I did not put my name on the list because i am afraid this could affect my future, cancel culture could get worse and…

Your reference to Linus is a great example that completely undermines the entire fundamental argument of "cancel culture". If people complain about your bad behaviour, you apoligize and we all move on that's not cancel culture is it. That's just people making mistakes, being picked up on them and apoligizing. People aren't setting out to cancel anyone, they've highlighted something they don't like, explained why it's…

Your changing the history, cancel culture failed to cancel Linus, he had a smart strategy and enough supporters to escape.

For what specific issue RMS did not apologized yet? Let us know the issue, why does he need to apologize for that specific one and why if there is no apology for that issue should he be canceled from his own project?

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#316

I'm creating a throwaway that I hope won't irk dang. If this breaks the rules, I'm sorry and I'll stop. Richard Stallman single-handedly created the free software movement, and he's the reason we all have jobs. Google and Facebook might not have been possible in a world where you couldn't spin up a server for free and compile code without paying a license. Richard Stallman has said some sexist and edgy things. He als…

> Richard Stallman single-handedly created the free software movement The "Free Software" movement (cap F, cap S), yes. > and he's the reason we all have jobs No. There was a sizeable movement for public domain software before Stallman. Stallman brought along a particular ideology and one which resonated with a lot of people, as well as coding a bunch of software himself. But it is an incredible reach to say that, wi…

It might be the case that Open Source would have been created without RMS.

However, you can't deny that Copyleft (the legal hack that guarantees that source code will stay open) was his invention. I am not aware of anyone else thinking this way in the timeframe he first put his idea in public.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#317

We almost Linus Torwalds because of the cancel culture, would be a big loss to lose RMS because he is no longer good PR to have him, bonus points if some big business like Google or Red Hat could grab the leadership of FSF and GNU. There was a few days back a post for people to support RMS and I admit I did not put my name on the list because i am afraid this could affect my future, cancel culture could get worse and…

Linus was confronted with his toxic behavior by peers and apologized. That is the only reason why we didn't "lose" him, or rather, he was allowed to stay. It's high time the open source community cleaned house and made itself unwelcome to assholes.

Can you tell me for exactly what specific thing RMS should apologize (there are many vague or misinterpreted actions of RMS so I am not sure which one is affecting you)?

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to live in a world without American freedom of speech - where we can't be blunt and speak our minds. I take issue with this. I'm not hugely adept at history but from my understanding there has never been a time where you can just blurt out a communication and have it be "accepted" by society - this seems to me very American and appears very detached from reality and real world experience. Yes, you are…

> Yes, you are accountable for the communications you make, whether via keybord, orally, or any other way. Just for the purpose of debating let me bring up my (very unpopular) point of view. I have always thought that anyone should be able to say anything and not have legal consequences (ex: go to prison, pay a fine). Notice that this statement covers all scenarios as long as the person involved "only speaks" (or pub…

> would still defend the right for some random person to publicly state that "we should kill all xxx", not because I agree with him, but because we should be able to discuss the reasons and try to convince him to do otherwise

I think that's incredibly naive and doesn't actually work in the world we live in. Take a look at any of the genocides of the last century, with people on one side saying "we should kill all X", people saying "no, X are fine people", and sometimes the first type of people winning and going full genocide.

FFS it happened as recently as last year in Myanmar about mass misinformation against Rohingyas, which escalated to a genocide.

What then? When the "explaining" doesn't work, do you wait for the actions to start ( taking in mind that usually when a mass amount of people start genociding another people, you can't just easily stop it)? Then, in a way, aren't you complicit in that genocide because you could have acted before but chose to just talk? That's what the Germans settled on post-WWII, that they were all complicit for allowing the Nazis to get so far ( and talking obviously got them nowhere).

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#319
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the difference is that Torvalds remains competent? Easy example: Stallman's idealism is why LLVM is now the academics favoured compiler to work on (i.e. no plugins for GCC) More human example: Someone I know who works in the GNU ecosystem on a reasonably major project mentioned that rms was cordial until he found out that this maintainer had children. And this was in response to someone handing already GPL code…

Any proof that LLVM is chosen now on most universities? Because I also have anecdotes where I was offered a job to work on GCC for a specific hardware architecture and bring improvements. Though I would be more interested on what compiler or license brings the most real value to the society and not which ones brings more money to a small group of mega rich guys. Why not credit GPL or RMS for the Linux success over BS…

All the new fangled optimizations are being done on LLVM, Sanitizers were LLVM first etc.

GCC target support remains incredibly impressive of course, but that's not the sexy stuff.

Also I regard GNU's success in userspace as mainly stemming from the 90s, my comment was regarding roughly post- somewhere in the 2000s

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#320

A whole different angle, I wonder how well the FSF folk get on with RMS. For all the defenses people mount of him, no one says he's a nice guy to be around. I'm still against the Twitter mob etc., I do wonder though if RMS nuked his own organisation by joining the helm again. Life's unfair.

FSF employees said they unionized to deal with him.[1][2] And more recent accounts are bad too.[3]

[1] https://twitter.com/paulnivin/status/1374499598853545986

[2] https://twitter.com/NovalisDMT/status/1172573166956437505

[3] https://twitter.com/georgialyle/status/1374504389155508232

Post reply on HN