A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

Post by insert_coin » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:42 AM UTC

dpatterbee wrote: post #52

outsomnia wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and what's actually the problem with that stance that justifies what is being done to Stallman? It should be OK with everyone to be referred to by name and the set of generic English words that can be applied to anyone.

The problem is that gender is a complicated social issue and not every transgender person wants to be thrown into an "other" category with their pronouns. Given how simple it is to use someone's preferred pronouns once they've been made clear to you, I don't see how it's a problem to do so.

Post by vmception » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:42 AM UTC

pydry wrote: post #45

vmception wrote: post #6

Ok I’m missing a key part of this: Why should I care about this recurring drama? Is the leadership of the FSF even important? I’ve gone my whole life without needing to follow board composition of the FSF.

A principled head of the FSF is bad for corporate profit margins but good for anybody else who participates in the free software ecosystem. There are quite a lot of powerful people who would like to see it water down its principles. Thats a lot easier without Stallman. I don't for a second believe that this is actually about what RMS said. This scandal has corporate PR fingerprints all over it.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:43 AM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #72

tomxor wrote: post #33

At this point I think the most important thing is that mob rule is shown to not be the way. I don't know RMS, I don't even know much about RMS... but I have heard enough to know he's not the intolerant idiot he's been made out to be in these hateful letters. There are possibly other very reasonable criticisms for him being removed from his position, but the mob made that impossible to discuss now due to the overwhelm…

“I know nothing about the target, but he must be innocent!”

Post by zaarn » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:44 AM UTC

ginko wrote: post #61

sokoloff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I read it, users will still have the option to choose the existing concrete license (ignoring “or later”), so if V4 became a restrictive license somehow, “V2 or later” is no more restrictive for users who don’t want it to be.

I think the worry is that a V4 could be less restrictive. Imagine the FSF gets bought out and releases a GPLv4 that's essentially the MIT license. All existing "GPLvX or later" software like the Linux kernel could then be extended without releasing the source code.

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:44 AM UTC

undecisive wrote: post #114

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We cannot truly know someone's intent. We can evaluate the impact of their words and actions. If you define words like “racist” and “transphobic” to be solely about professed intent, then you will find that bigotry seemingly doesn't exist.

> We cannot truly know someone's intent. Oh, you can get pretty close. What you do is you look at their attitudes towards the marginalized individuals, to marginalized communities, their opinions as a whole, their advocacy, their friendship groups, etc. If, on balance, they appear to support and promote people of colour or transgender people (as much as they do any other people group) - then this person is probably n…