Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 139 posts

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#51

Post by BeetleB »

Splendor wrote: post #40
semitones wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the point that RMS is trying to make. His argument (iirc) is that "rape" might be an incorrect word used to describe what happened (was it proved to be rape? The only part proved iirc were the ages), and that immediately because the person was 17 instead of 18, that word is used to describe the situation without second thought. I don't think he was saying that there should be zero repercussions, or that we sh…

What word or phrase would you used to describe sex between an old man and a 17 year-old girl?

Sex?

This is a silly question, because you're not even bringing jurisdictions into it. In much of the US, this is perfectly legal and is neither rape nor statutory rape.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#52

Post by onli »

sthomas1618 wrote: post #6
underseacables wrote: post #3

That is a really well written statement in my humble opinion. It’s almost like they’re trying to tell people “look we need this guy, and yeah for many it sucks, but for the betterment of the mission and the future of free software, we have to come together because he is simply too valuable to ignore“ I was intrigued at “ The announcement by RMS at LibrePlanet was a complete surprise to staff, all those who worked so…

I could not disagree more. This whole statement is "sorry, not sorry". If someone is known to be a toxic person (and currently still is), you do not let them on to your team. Ever.

There is no team without him, you are aware of that, right? The core purpose of the FSF is to defend his achievements and to follow the path he laid out decades ago. He is not accused to be a toxic person, he is attacked on various angles by a mismatch of FUD, puritan toxicity and simple hate against unconventional people.

Sure, you can opt to distance from that, but what do you stand for then? Giving up against an irrational mob is not a legacy under which the FSF can prosper.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#53

Post by not_again1234 »

sthomas1618 wrote: post #29
semitones wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toxicity isn't a binary thing - there's levels to it. If the benefits one can bring to a team outweigh their negative attributes, then you should let them on your team. As far as how to determine whether the good outweighs the bad, that's a different topic. He brings a lot to the table, and I don't think he should have his work and life "cancelled" because some people disagree with his opinions...

I'll give you that things are hardly ever binary. But toxicity is something that can be determined. They are the people do not care about others. They do not listen, no matter how many times you've talked to them. They see themselves as correct in their attitude, and others wrong. They do not change, or at least not in the short term (and definitely if they never suffer consequences). I've worked with these kind of p…

Indeed we all have met them, they are usually to be found in Steering Councils while pretending to be noble and good.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#54

Post by ghaff »

ashtonkem wrote: post #36
underseacables wrote: post #3

That is a really well written statement in my humble opinion. It’s almost like they’re trying to tell people “look we need this guy, and yeah for many it sucks, but for the betterment of the mission and the future of free software, we have to come together because he is simply too valuable to ignore“ I was intrigued at “ The announcement by RMS at LibrePlanet was a complete surprise to staff, all those who worked so…

> look we need this guy The apocryphal Charles de Gaulle quote that applies here is "graveyards are full of indispensable men". RMS is one man, the FSF is an organization that is supposed to have aims that are bigger and larger reaching than one single person, which is why it's an org in the first place. If the FSF cannot get by without RMS now, they will not survive RMS himself in the long run. > This sounds like RM…

Mostly I'll grant the GNU Project and the GPL and associated philosophical underpinning. Whether you favor copyleft or not, it has almost certainly been useful to have that basis for FOSS--given that the permissive licenses were mostly about pragmatism. Having said that, one of my lawyer friends has pondered whether the FSF's focus on licensing as the primary software freedom tool hasn't led to some of the licensing debates going on today.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#55

Post by ashtonkem »

ghaff wrote: post #54
ashtonkem wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> look we need this guy The apocryphal Charles de Gaulle quote that applies here is "graveyards are full of indispensable men". RMS is one man, the FSF is an organization that is supposed to have aims that are bigger and larger reaching than one single person, which is why it's an org in the first place. If the FSF cannot get by without RMS now, they will not survive RMS himself in the long run. > This sounds like RM…

Mostly I'll grant the GNU Project and the GPL and associated philosophical underpinning. Whether you favor copyleft or not, it has almost certainly been useful to have that basis for FOSS--given that the permissive licenses were mostly about pragmatism. Having said that, one of my lawyer friends has pondered whether the FSF's focus on licensing as the primary software freedom tool hasn't led to some of the licensing…

That's all well and good, but it is completely orthogonal to whether or not he should be on the FSF board. The GPL was an important contribution he made to the community ... 30 years ago. The FSF has been fighting for the GPL over more permissive licenses for a while, and losing badly. Maybe it was a doomed fight from the get go, but it is certainly clear that he has not been successful.

Obviously without him the FSF and GNU as we know it would not exist, but leadership is all about what you will do in the future, not what you did in the past. So the question is, why is he indispensable to the FSF today?

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#56

Post by tsimionescu »

semitones wrote: post #14
Splendor wrote: post #5

> He has sincere regrets, especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the reputation and mission of FSF. This line really misses the mark for me. When you defend a man who raped a 17 year-old girl, your biggest regret shouldn't be about how it harmed your reputation.

This is the point that RMS is trying to make. His argument (iirc) is that "rape" might be an incorrect word used to describe what happened (was it proved to be rape? The only part proved iirc were the ages), and that immediately because the person was 17 instead of 18, that word is used to describe the situation without second thought. I don't think he was saying that there should be zero repercussions, or that we sh…

This is essentially RMS' point, and it is pretty much a stupid technicality that even his deceitful 'I now know better' non-apology doesn't in fact contradict at all. Sure, the word 'rape' invites images of forcing yourself on someone through explicit violence, when what Minsky did is statutory rape, non-consensual sex with someone by virtue of them being unable to consent (since she was a minor).

But it misses the point that Minsky was an old, intelligent, somehwat rich and powerful man (in his 70s? 80s?) having sex with a sex worker 60 years his junior. That he might not have known she was technically a minor and forced into sex work against her will doesn't entirely excuse his behavior, and his reputation is worth almost nothing compared to the hurt that he caused her, even if unkowingly.

The fact that we don't (and won't ever) know for sure whether he had in fact been aware that she was a minor forced into this situation against her will makes the situation even worse.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#57

Post by guenthert »

tsimionescu wrote: post #45
throwaway8581 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares what he thinks about Minsky paying for sex? It’s hard to imagine something less relevant to his job.

His job is entirely ideological, so his ideology receives due scrutiny, even if this were an entirely unrelated field. But, given that Minsky is a significant name in the compiter science communities, and that Stallman continues to deny that Minsky's behavior (having sex with a 17 year-old unwilling sex worker while he was 70? 80?, even though he may have thought she was an 18-year old willinh sex worker) is not emto…

When did you stop beating your wife?

Minsky did not have sex with an underage sex worker. Allegedly Epstein directed that woman to offer sex to Minsky, but that didn't occur. It is mind boggling how readily some people throw mud here.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#58

Post by Volundr »

onli wrote: post #52
sthomas1618 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could not disagree more. This whole statement is "sorry, not sorry". If someone is known to be a toxic person (and currently still is), you do not let them on to your team. Ever.

There is no team without him, you are aware of that, right? The core purpose of the FSF is to defend his achievements and to follow the path he laid out decades ago. He is not accused to be a toxic person, he is attacked on various angles by a mismatch of FUD, puritan toxicity and simple hate against unconventional people. Sure, you can opt to distance from that, but what do you stand for then? Giving up against an i…

> There is no team without him, you are aware of that, right?

I certainly hope this is not true. Stallman will die one day. I doubt that anyone in FSF simply intends to just pack it in when that happens.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#59

Post by blablabla123 »

WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #7

One can't deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS's caliber doesn't yet exist. I'm afraid, for this reason alone quite a few people get to think that if you consistently apply software freedom principles in all parts of your life where you use or produce software, it must come with the baggage of all other flaws of RMS's charact…

I mean for years it has been an open secret that organizations and also people are okay with certain degrees of problematic behaviours. I cannot remember how often I read blog articles linked on HN about HR departments ignoring reasonable complaints. At some point it is then also necessary to have direct words every now and then. Otherwise this system is just passed on and never improved.

I also have serious doubts that toxic behaviour is supposed to be particularly bad in IT orgs. (What about investment banks or construction businesses?) At the same time the sentiment towards IT is "traditionally" really bad.

That said, as long as RMS didn't do anything outside of the law, it might be positive to give him another chance in the FSF world. This would set also an example for a possible way out for other orgs beyond canceling. Although I still think they should put a new person on the top and put RMS next to that person. Also to make the FSF as open as it wants to appear.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#60

Post by ghaff »

ashtonkem wrote: post #55
ghaff wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly I'll grant the GNU Project and the GPL and associated philosophical underpinning. Whether you favor copyleft or not, it has almost certainly been useful to have that basis for FOSS--given that the permissive licenses were mostly about pragmatism. Having said that, one of my lawyer friends has pondered whether the FSF's focus on licensing as the primary software freedom tool hasn't led to some of the licensing…

That's all well and good, but it is completely orthogonal to whether or not he should be on the FSF board. The GPL was an important contribution he made to the community ... 30 years ago. The FSF has been fighting for the GPL over more permissive licenses for a while, and losing badly. Maybe it was a doomed fight from the get go, but it is certainly clear that he has not been successful. Obviously without him the FSF…

He's not. And I'm not convinced the FSF as a whole is needed, certainly not with the current leadership.

I was mostly responding to "I'd argue that you are probably overweighting the early history of the FSF." I'm just saying there were some important things in that early history but I agree much less since.

Post reply on HN