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

John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

social.librem.one

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 431 posts

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#231

Post by mpol »

iSnow wrote: post #163
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not matter if rms is a nice person or not. He didn't do anything criminal, his only offense is stoically and pedantically expressing his views, unyielding to public pressure. In other words, displaying those very qualities that helped him change software development forever. People should not be destroyed for not being nice enough to certain individuals prone to offenses, and conforming to someone else's view…

Then again, if you are of a divisive personality type, you maybe should not lead an organization as others might not want to work with you, companies might want to withdraw funding because they don't like to be associated with the controversy around you. And lastly, you might reduce the reach of your own ideas.

Or maybe other people are divisive and want to destroy or compromise the FSF?

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#232

Post by gjulianm »

simion314 wrote: post #55

We almost Linus Torwalds because of the cancel culture, would be a big loss to lose RMS because he is no longer good PR to have him, bonus points if some big business like Google or Red Hat could grab the leadership of FSF and GNU. There was a few days back a post for people to support RMS and I admit I did not put my name on the list because i am afraid this could affect my future, cancel culture could get worse and…

> We almost Linus Torvalds because of the cancel culture

This is not what happened and I don't know why you would say "it's cancel culture". The issue with Torvalds was not about PR. It was a push by maintainers of the kernel, aka his peers. Torvalds was not criticized because of his opinions, but because of his behavior towards others. As he said in his own email [1] "My flippant attacks in emails have been both unprofessional and uncalled for [...] I know now this was not OK and I am truly sorry". Saying it's "cancel culture" is as if get fired from my company because I'm constantly lashing out at my colleagues and say "they fired me because of my opinions!".

A lot of times people conflate "cancel culture" with "people being responsible for what they say and do". In this case, Stallman replied to a protest that called for a review of MIT donor policies and association with people like Epstein with nitpicking about whether Minsky's actions (who was dead by that time already) were or not "technically sexual assault". That also helped surface a lot of actions and words by Stallman that were, at the very least, inadequate. Maybe that's not the kind of actions that one expects from the president of the FSF.

1: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1809.2/00117.html?... 2: https://www.facebook.com/events/687098025098336/

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#234

Post by DanBC »

beaconstudios wrote: post #49
kosinus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> American freedom of speech This specifically is such a weird expression. Other than that, just because Stallman did a good thing once, doesn’t excuse him from other mistakes. And making mistakes is not itself a problem, you can always own up to them and learn. But what I gather from the discussion is that there is a _pattern_ of bad behaviour.

what did he actually do that you would consider "bad behaviour"? I know he's widely regarded as a blunt/offensive speaker, willing to speak his mind on topics most sensible people just keep quiet on, but has he actually harmed anybody? Committed any crimes? [edit] this is a genuine question. I've seen him write edgy things but am not aware of any harm he's done to others.

> I know he's widely regarded as a blunt/offensive speaker,

I find it genuinely odd that people can say this, and recognise that he's in a position that requires skill in communication, and not feel that there's a mismatch between the man and the job.

He has, for years, been poor at one of the core requirements of the position.

And then people say "but people make mistakes, he should be allowed to learn and grow" and I totally agree. But he shows no insight. He almost never accepts what he said was wrong, he almost always pushes that onto what other people understood.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#235

Post by Shish2k »

bitwize wrote: post #120
2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't comment on most of the accusations, I have never met rms in person. But what really shocked me was that the authors of the anti rms letter label him as "transphobe", as a source for that claim they link to his GNU Kind Communications Guidelines [1], which to me spell the exact opposite. Why put such a claim in there? I find it really disturbing that so many people willingly accept that it's ok to mix legitima…

It's the bit about singular "they". RMS for some reason doesn't like singular "they", despite the fact that it predates singular "you" in common English usage. Singular "they" also happens to be, by far, the preferred pronoun of nonbinary people. By telling people not to use singular "they", RMS is harming, offending, and driving away nonbinary people from participation in GNU projects.

TBH even as a nonbinary person who goes by singular “they”, even I think that singular-they is ambiguous and I wish that some other non-ambiguous singular-gender-neutral pronoun had taken off instead…

(I’m still going by “they” because a bad standard beats an incompatible hodgepodge of non-standards)

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#236

Post by meribold »

risky_opinions wrote: post #9

I'm creating a throwaway that I hope won't irk dang. If this breaks the rules, I'm sorry and I'll stop. Richard Stallman single-handedly created the free software movement, and he's the reason we all have jobs. Google and Facebook might not have been possible in a world where you couldn't spin up a server for free and compile code without paying a license. Richard Stallman has said some sexist and edgy things. He als…

The fact that parent created a "risky_opinions" throwaway for sharing their rather moderate take on this controversy should tell all of us that something is going wrong.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#237

Post by mpol »

Glavnokoman wrote: post #230
fen4o wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ and the counter-letter https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Thanks for the links! And I guess the rms-support is getting yet another "russian bot" signature.

I'm not a Russian bot and yes, I did sign the support letter.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#238

Post by c0l0 »

bartread wrote: post #207
mhh__ wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C+P of a compelling list from the gcc mailing list I read: 1. 'skeptical that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.’ stallman's own archives 2006-mar-jun I note that children are incapable of consenting. That’s what the age of consent means. 2. 'end censorship of “child pornography”’. Stallman's archives 2012-jul-oct.html Notice use of “quotes” to down play what is actually being requested. 3. 'gentle expressions of…

> 10. ‘My first interaction with RMS was at a hacker con at 19. He asked my name, I gave it, whether I went to MIT (I had an MIT shirt on), and after confirmation I did, asked me on a date. I said no. That was our entire conversation.’ corbett's twitter feed. This is but one of many reports of utterly inappropriate social interactions. Just in case anybody else picks up on this and wonders what's so wrong with asking…

When my parents met and fell in love, my father was 48 years old, and my mother was 21. I was born four years later.

My father died two years ago, at the age of 86. My mother lovingly cared for him during these last and toughest months of his.

I'm not even sure why I am sharing this here... I guess it just upset me that you, effectively, called him a creep. Maybe try not to judge people who seek (and sometimes even manage to find) love in ways you are not willing to try or to understand.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#239

Post by KptMarchewa »

Guthur wrote: post #79
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> Freedom of speech isn't the freedom to not be publicly judged about what you say. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

The problem is who's deciding what is and isn't acceptable, RMS has been saying clearly derogatory statements about religion, the basis of most of our shared morality, for decades without a single peep from the virtue crowd. He says a few edgy this about something else and then the pitch forks are out. The problem is that I'm not sure we have much of a shared morality any more.

>religion, the basis of most of our shared morality

lol

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#240

Post by DanBC »

toomim wrote: post #114
clappski wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to live in a world without American freedom of speech - where we can't be blunt and speak our minds. Freedom of speech isn't the freedom to not be publicly judged about what you say.

Freedom of speech is about the freedom to make political opinions while retaining your place in society as a citizen. None of the public judgements about RMS are about anything technical, anything about free software, or anything that touch on him running the FSF. He voiced an unfashionable opinion on sex and the laws about sex. This is a political act to blacklist a man for his political opinions from work in a prof…

> or anything that touch on him running the FSF.

Can't you see that a position that requires public speaking requires someone who is good at public speaking? Someone who doesn't continually cause misunderstanding because they're so poor at communicating?

Post reply on HN