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

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#131

Post by alexvoda »

sildur wrote: post #128
goodpoint wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can go fund another movement We do. Plenty of developers fund FSFE, Conservancy, EFF and so on. That does not take away the validity of the complains about RMS as a spokeperson. He admits it himself: https://www.fsf.org/news/rms-addresses-the-free-software-com... > if you are so sensitive. No need for snark. It's not a matter of my personal taste. Being a public speaker requires understanding how to fit the exp…

> We do. Plenty of developers fund FSFE, Conservancy, EFF and so on. Then carry on. Obviously the Free Software movement is not your cup of tea. You will probably feel more comfortable in the OSS movement. More business oriented. > No need for snark. It's not a matter of my personal taste. But it is. He offends your sensibilities. Not mine. Not other people's. > It is difficult to support FLOSS in the workplace and i…

>> We do. Plenty of developers fund FSFE, Conservancy, EFF and so on.

> Then carry on. Obviously the Free Software movement is not your cup of tea. You will probably feel more comfortable in the OSS movement. More business oriented.

I find it interesting that you consider FSFE and SFC as irelevant to Free Software and sugest OSS.

Goodpoint did not suggest the OSI. Why do you bring forwared the whole free vs open source discussion?

I would say in recent times SFC has done a lot more for free software than the FSF. Name one thing of note that the FSF has done in the last decade.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#132

Post by horsawlarway »

newacct583 wrote: post #124
horsawlarway wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm literally responding to this line - >But jumping in to argue that the absence of evidence proves innocence That line is a fucking disaster philosophy. "I can't prove he did anything, and no one has accused him, but I hereby declare him not-innocent" --- Next up we can debate how the child should pay for the crimes of his father.

How did you get onto this tangent? Minsky isn't on trial here. He's dead. The point wasn't to determine whether or not the accusation against him merits a conviction, but to point out that this isn't a license to (1) make excuses for the crime of which he was accused or (2) (from upthread) declare that the crime definitely didn't even happen, when it's pretty clear that it probably did.

Nor does it excuse a descent to mob justice (from either side).

Our law is based on procedural justice because it turns out that societies run on mob justice are fucking terrible.

Basically - I'm on this tangent because I find your line of reasoning distasteful. The answer right now is that we don't know.

Unlike both you and those you disagree with, I don't think it's appropriate to make any judgement on this from our armchairs on the internet.

At best, we're in the "trust, but verify" stage of this with regards to a single accusation with no confirmed time or location (or any other detail, as far as I'm aware) - Yet I see a whole lot of folks happy to be judge, jury, and executioner (again, on both sides). With basically no one suggesting that maybe we should do our due diligence first.

He might be dead, but his wife isn't, his friends aren't, his memory isn't. And while I sure agree that RMS is one tonedeaf motherfucker, I have at least some empathy for the impulse to defend a close friend (although lord knows I wouldn't have gone about it the same way...). Particularly given it happened when the friend wasn't around to defend himself.

Now - having said that, I chose to comment here because while I fault both sides for jumping to conclusions, I find it MUCH more ethically troubling to jump to a conclusion of guilt. Mobs don't lynch people they've decided are innocent, they lynch the ones they've decided are guilty. I judge that much more harshly.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#133

Post by solipsism »

ghaff wrote: post #30
pieter_mj wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>this announcement should be extremely worrying. I agree it's slightly worrying, there's currently no replacement for RMS. The libre software movement risks falling apart if he is no longer there. FSF and RMS should make quick work of finding someone valuable.

I'm not even sure what this libre software movement even is that would fall apart in the absence of RMS and the FSF.

Yes.. please God someone tell me, which parts of the sky would fall if the entire FSF org disappeared tomorrow?

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#134

Post by einpoklum »

ashtonkem wrote: post #115
blablabla123 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> That said, as long as RMS didn't do anything outside of the law. I always balk at the introduction of "the law" into these discussions. Inherently there are all kinds of behavior that is legal but can and should get you fired. Talking about the law here is just setting the bar unreasonably high.

> I always balk at the introduction of "the law" into these discussions.

Me too, but

> Inherently there are all kinds of behavior that is legal but can and should get you fired.

The thing is, employers are typically not acceptable judges of morality and legitimacy of actions. They have inherent biases in general, and specific ones have a bunch of specific interests of the specific company owners or NGO factions.

Which is why it is problematic to move from a moral judgement of someone's actions to a n expectation of them getting fired.

--

... regardless, Stallman is not being hired as an employee, but elected to be a board member, which is something very different.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#135

Post by knz_ »

sildur wrote: post #125
goodpoint wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purpose of the FSF isn't protecting children The purpose of FSF and RMS as a spokeperson/leader is to represent a movement and the people behind it. You cannot represent *me* if you: - make all sort of "weird" remarks about age of consent - brush off any sincere question or constructive criticism for decades - systematically walk up to every young woman in a conference to ask her out - throw temper tantrums for…

> You cannot represent me if you: He represents me, and many more. You can go fund another movement, if you feel attacked.

> He represents me

So you are saying that you support pedophilia.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#136

Post by dragonsngoblins »

goodpoint wrote: post #95
NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one who simply doesn't care? The purpose of the FSF isn't protecting children. It's the promotion of free software. Some tone-deaf words by RMS are only even relevant because of the prevalence of cancel culture and the cult of wokeism. Software will still need to be free after the fad cult of wokeism has been left behind. What the media claimed was Stallman defended Epstein. That isn't true. The whole t…

> The purpose of the FSF isn't protecting children The purpose of FSF and RMS as a spokeperson/leader is to represent a movement and the people behind it. You cannot represent *me* if you: - make all sort of "weird" remarks about age of consent - brush off any sincere question or constructive criticism for decades - systematically walk up to every young woman in a conference to ask her out - throw temper tantrums for…

> The purpose of FSF and RMS as a spokeperson/leader is to represent a movement and the people behind it.

You mean purpose of FSF and RMS as a spokeperson/leader is to represent a movement and the the views of the people behind it in regards to software.

This is a subtle but important distinction.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#137

Post by jangid »

angry_octet wrote: post #129
jangid wrote: post #121

My frustration is for the stupid people in the GCC mailing list who think that those individuals are bigger than the ideological cause. They even started contemplating that GCC should fork away from FSF.

I'm sure you mean "stupid people who believe in equality" so it is hilarious that you think one individual, RMS, is more important than the ideas of copyleft. The best compliment that you can pay RMS is to say that his ideas were greater than the man, and they they deserve to outlive him. GCC is already separate from RMS/FSF, effectively from the late 1990s with the EGCS fork, and officially now. I expect they will m…

I have not named RMS. FSF and the cause is bigger than RMS.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#138

Post by easton »

marcan_42 wrote: post #119
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…

RMS is only consistent in that his opinions are, consistently, where they were in the 80s, and have remained unchanged for the past 40 years. They are outdated and entirely self-inconsistent with the world in 2021, and at odds with true freedom for users. This applies to women and inclusivity, which has been written about ad nauseam. But it also applies to their own philosophy and software freedom. Here's a meta-thre…

Old thread, apologies, but if you were curious: the origin of the proprietary blob exception was in Stallman's policy that "if the software can't be modified at all, software freedom is irrelevant". As he wanted to be able to use, say, a microwave that had a proprietary ROM for a timer without needing the source code.

I'd argue that there's a gigantic gulf between a microwave and the baseband firmware of a cellular modem that governs all communications into and out of the device, but apparently they don't see it that way.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#139

Post by ashtonkem »

einpoklum wrote: post #134
ashtonkem wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, as long as RMS didn't do anything outside of the law. I always balk at the introduction of "the law" into these discussions. Inherently there are all kinds of behavior that is legal but can and should get you fired. Talking about the law here is just setting the bar unreasonably high.

> I always balk at the introduction of "the law" into these discussions. Me too, but > Inherently there are all kinds of behavior that is legal but can and should get you fired. The thing is, employers are typically not acceptable judges of morality and legitimacy of actions. They have inherent biases in general, and specific ones have a bunch of specific interests of the specific company owners or NGO factions. Whic…

> The thing is, employers are typically not acceptable judges of morality and legitimacy of actions.

Nice goalpost moving. “Morality” is not the same as “you get to keep your job”. If I stand on the counter and flick every single customer off and tell them that they should , I should be fired. This isn’t making a moral judgement at all, it’s making a judgement about whether or not I’m still fit for the job.

> Stallman is not being hired as an employee, but elected to be a board member, which is something very different.

The bar for being elected to the board is arguably higher than being hired as an employee.

Post reply on HN