No Radical Changes in GNU Project

It just makes me so sad. I'd like to learn the truth about this whole issue, and see justice served, but without an official and thorough situation it all remains hearsay and such.

I firmly refuse to install non-free software or tolerate its installed presence on my computer or on computers set up for me.

However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don't refuse to touch them. I will use them briefly for tasks such as browsing. This limited usage doesn't give my assent to the software's license, or make me responsible its being present in the computer, or make me the possessor of a copy of it, so I don't see an ethical obligation to refrain from this. Of course, I explain to the local people why they should migrate the machines to free software, but I don't push them hard, because annoying them is not the way to convince them.

Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then. (I do consider what those machines and their owners might do with my personal data, but that's a different issue, which would arise just the same even if they did use free software. My response to that issue is to minimize those activities which give them any data about me.)

https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

A kiosk, pay phone, ATM, or someone else's personal computer is indeed not a "cloud" server; I might reasonably extrapolate that Stallman would have the same opinion about software installed on someone else's server, but whether if that is true or not, this may in fact not be an official "GNU" position, as such.

I carefully reread the statements, and I still maintain my opinion on it. I see what you are getting at — he suggested that the girl _presented herself_ as entirely willing, and that this may have been coerced by Epstein. I said in my original comment that I don't want an innocent person accused of sexual assault, and indeed he's suggesting Marvin was innocent in that regard.

However, at this point we're debating whether another person is innocent in order to determine the innocence of some phrasing. My Occam's Razor interpretation really is not that clear here. I honestly cannot say that I think the Vice, et al., interpretation (that he is referring to victims as "entirely willing") is particularly far fetched.

>> for these specific allegations RMS was being conflated with ESR, another known sexual predator who has some fame in the early world of FOSS >I hope your phrasing here is accidental, because it could be read as alleging that RMS is a "known sexual predator". I'm pretty sure some people will read it that way and run with it.

Yes, indeed there my phrasing is accidental. I'll admit that is very poor phrasing. I'll be clear that I do not think RMS is a "known sexual predator." I also can't say I actively think he is one either, though I do have my assumptions based on this and his prior thoughts.

>> I saw nothing lying about him being a pedophile. >Me neither. Him defending a pedophile (Epstein) was a lie news outlets run with. Him believing at some point in the past pedophilia may be harmless when both sides are willing is true, because he wrote exactly that years ago (recently retracted, whether because of actual change of mind or damage control is besides the point).

I have not seen the retraction — I believe that he may have retracted it, but the post on his blog was never updated and I have not seen such a retraction. If you could please provide such a link I'd appreciate it.

>> The man's a known pedophile sympathizer, and clearly based on the dates published he doesn't intend to retract any of his own articles proving such any time soon. >Now that is, from what I can tell, factually incorrect. He only wrote in the past that he think the popular opinion on pedophilia is wrong due to issues of bias. >EDIT: You actually quoted the exact statement. Re-read it carefully. >> Seriously, click that [1] link and try to say he's not a pedophile sympathizer… >I clicked that and browsed the results and all I saw in the first couple was: >1) that he believes accusing an underage person who shot nude photos of herself, with no indication of abuse or coercion, of "self-abuse", is bullshit, and >2) that he believes "child pornography" is routinely used as an excuse to justify deploying technologies for Internet censorship, which then can and are being extended to cover more and more material - this being an issue of freedom

Personally I absolutely agree with both 1 and 2 myself, so let me be clear that neither is all he says disagreeable nor bad. I do however think that the sheer number of things he's written on child pornography and pedophilia are a little worrying. Let me repeat I also have not seen him retract past statements (and that I certainly may have missed him doing so). I'm not going to deny this is also based on some bias and personal opinion at all, but it's based on the greater context — I'm looking at it from the perspective I see when I consider all of this information, and I see him as a pedophile sympathizer, and I see that his blog is evidence that he is one.

Let me also be clear that I do believe in free speech, and that he shouldn't have to remove any of his blog posts nor that he should be penalized legally based on thoughts and views. I don't want us to slip down to thoughtcrime.

>Both views are very far from being "pedophile sympathizer"; in particular 2) is what I think is a view shared by most HNers too. >I'm going to assume you're quick to jump to conclusions, but be wary that stuff like this can be misconstrued to further spread falsehoods. >EDIT: >> Also, to be clear, the Vice article that you are thinking of[3] that said he defended a pedophile has an excerpt straight from the CSAIL mailing list that's been confirmed by multiple others. >Yes. Vice article misquotes RMS both in the headline and in the article proper, and I'm having a hard time browsing their broken PDF widget so I'll refer you to the original post that started the whole mess: >https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec2.... >C-f "willing" to find the actual words Stallman used. >EDIT: And where in previous comment I said it started with a blogger that decided to slander RMS, I meant Salem G. and the post I linked to above, not Mr Gruber, who only conveniently managed to pour gasoline into the fire by confusing ESR with RMS.

I would have linked the original article by Salem G if I remembered what it went by. My points are mainly about undisputed facts (he said this and that), and how one can interpret them (does that make him a pedophile sympathizer?)