This post is mostly wrong, wrong, wrong.
> Hammering on about “GNU/Linux” nomenclature
Linux is just a kernel, not an OS. It was bundled with the GNU system, which was missing a kernel. See explanation here:
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
For many years you could use Debian over the FreeBSD kernel, for example - having the GNU system, plus a bunch of non-GNU software, over another kernel.
These days, maybe we should call them GNU/systemd/Linux systems :-(
> maligning the audience as “useds” rather than “users”
Nowhere on the FSF website do I see that term used (I checked with their search function).
I do see this term on GNU.org, applied to Facebook "users". I think it is not maligning people, it is critiquing behavior, and that is quite appropriate in that context.
> antagonism towards our allies in the open source movement
I hope you mean the Free Software (or FOSS) movement - right?
Anyway, which allies do you mean? I hope you don't suggest that Facebook, Google, Amazon and the like are our allies. Or maybe your conception of "us" is simply different?
> none of this aids the cause.
Ah, but what is "the" cause?
> The pages and pages of dense philosophical essays and poorly organized FAQs do not provide a useful entry point or reference for the community.
It seems you disagree with the content more than you do with the website entry points. It is quite a useful reference; but again, perhaps your "the community" is different.
> As for copyleft, well, it’s no coincidence that many people struggle with the FSF’s approach. ... over 1 million npm packages use a permissive license while fewer than 20,000 use the GPL; cargo sports a half-million permissive packages and another 20,000 or so GPL’d.
1. There's LGPL, which is intended for libraries (and npm packages would typically be that).
2. "Dedicating" software to be free, in the GPL sense, is no trivial matter. Sometimes you just can't do it because you don't own the legal rights; sometimes its because potential commercial users you are interested in will avoid GPLed stuff; and there are other reasons.
But it is the direction we should be converging towards: Software as something that is fundamentally free, period. No more lock-ins and development siloing and other artificial sabotage of software development due to narrow commercial interests.
> The FOSS community is now dominated by people who are beyond the reach of the FSF’s message.
To the extent that's true - _that_ is the problem. And the author is part of that problem. But it's really not that new: In the 1980s and 1990s most of these people were simply mostly interested in closed-source commercial software.
> It’s time for Richard Stallman to go
No.
> and the demographics [Richard Stallman] represents is becoming a minority
Richard Stallman does not represent demographics. His community and institutional positions are not representational, they are based on his theoretical and practical contributions.
> reach out to emerging leaders throughout the FOSS world, and ask them to take charge of the FSF’s mission.
How is this different from how the FSF does recruitment right now? (I don't know, I'm asking)
> The message needs to be made much more accessible and level in tone, and the relationship between free software and open source needs to be reformed so that the FSF and OSI stand together as the pillars at the foundations of our ecosystem.
Let the OSI adopt the FSF's positions, then, and we'll have a "level tone" and everyone will "stand together".
> Decouple the FSF from the GNU project
Interesting. But - how closely are they coupled?
> Develop new copyleft licenses
I'm not a license expert, for sure. But - to the extent that the author's critique is of ease of reading and understanding what the license means, this is at least a worthwhile idea. But to the extent that the author suggests "permissive" licenses instead of freedom-preserving ones, that would be in line with the implied suggestion to just drop the free software philosophy altogether.