I’ve been thinking about this for a while now.
Richard Stallman has been practically synonymous with Free Software since its inception. And there are good reasons why. It was his idea, and it was his passion that made the movement what it is today.
I deeply believe in the mission of the Free Software movement. But more and more, it seems that in order to survive, the Free Software movement may need to distance itself from him.
Richard Stallman has said some really disturbingly reprehensible things on multiple occasions (one and two). (He has said he’s changed these opinions, but it seems to me the damage is done.)
He’s asked that people blame him and not the FSF for these statements, but it seems naive to me to expect that to be enough not to tarnish the FSF’s reputation in the eyes of most people.
And Richard Stallman isn’t the only problematic figure associated with the Free Software movement… Eben Moglen (founder, Direct-Council, and Chairman of Software Freedom Law Center which is closely associated with the FSF) has been accused of much abusive and anti-LGBTQIA+ behavior over which the Free Software Foundation Europe and Software Freedom Concervancy have cut ties with the SFLC and Moglen (one and two).
Even aside from the public image problems, it seems like the FSF and SFLC have been holding back the Free Software movement strategically. Eben Moglan has long been adamant that the GPL shouldn’t be interpreted as a contract – only as a copyright license. What the SFC is doing now with the Visio lawsuit is only possible because the SFC had the courage to abandon that theory.
I sense there’s a rift in the Free Software movement. Especially given that the SFC and FSF Europe explicitly cutting ties with the SFLC and Moglen. And individual supporters of Free Software are going to have to decide which parties in this split are going to speak for and champion the cause of the community as a whole.
I imagine it’s pretty clear by this point that I favor the SFC in this split. I like what I’ve seen from the SFC in general. Not just the Visio lawsuit. But also the things I’ve heard said by SFC folks.
If the Free Software movement needs a single personality to be its face moving forward, I’d love for that face to be Bradley M. Kuhn, executive director of the SFC. He seems to have all of Stallman’s and Moglen’s assets (passion, dedication, an unwillingness to bend, and experience and knowledge of the legal aspects of Free Software enforcement) perhaps even more so than Stallman and Moglen do. And Kuhn excels in all the areas where Stallman and Moglen perhaps don’t so much (social consciousness, likeability, strategy.) I can’t say enough good things about Kuhn, really. (And his Wikipedia page doesn’t even have a “controversies” section.) (Also, please tell me there aren’t any skeletons in his closet.)
Even if the community does come to a consensus that the movement should distance itself from Stallman and Moglen, it’ll be difficult to achieve such a change in public perception and if it’s achieved, it may come at a cost. After all, Stallman is the first person everybody pictures when the FSF is mentioned. And acknowledging the problems with the Free Software movement’s “old brass” may damage the reputation of Free Software as a whole among those who might not differentiate between the parties in this split. But I feel it may be necessary for the future of the Free Software movement.
That’s my take, anyway. I’ll hop down off of my soap box, now. But I wanted to bring this up, hopefully let some folks whose ideals align with those of the Free Software movement about all this if they weren’t already aware, and maybe see what folks in general think about the future of the Free Software movement.
It’s not just the personalities, annoyingly. Even if supporters didn’t need to support Stallman with absurd statements like “he’s just too precise with his words for you to understand him,” the FSF still spent the '90s loudly dismissing people asking straightforward questions about what would happen if someone put GPL’d software onto an appliance or behind a web server. They mostly ignore anything that isn’t code. They’ve never looked at the future or how to convince people of their message. So, while I’ve donated to them in the past, I don’t really see them as relevant anymore. Putting Stallman back on the board with their “we miss him” press release also made it clear that they don’t see themselves as much more than his personal entourage, which even if he were the nicest, most progressive person in the world, would disqualify them as useful.
Is the Conservancy a replacement? I don’t know, because I don’t know if I can see their missions as overlapping enough to do so. It’s been a decade since Kuhn (not to pick on him) has so much as mentioned Copyleft-Next, for example, and that repository hasn’t budged in seven years.
Honestly, what I think that I’d really like to see is more of a grass-roots organization, where we’re not constantly waiting for “leaders” to show up. Especially since software has largely shifted to (on the ground) management through distributed systems and issue-tracking, it seems silly to keep imagining the Free Software movement as centralized.
For your first point, nobody is saying that. He was pedantic at a bad time. Not “too precise to understand”. Nice strawmanning though.
What do you mean they don’t care about putting GPLed software into appliances or a web server? The AGPL exists specifically to help in that area.
Regardless of their stance in the past and whether or not they saw it as a problem (I don’t know), it’s clear that they’ve seen it as a problem and have been tackling it for years.
They’re also looking at the problems of LLMs for free software, and what it could mean for the future. So yeah, they do look to the future.
And they do care about convincing people, and getting people on board - that’s what the new freedom ladder initiative is for.
And let’s not minimize the importance of software and code in the free software movement, ok? They provide valuable infrastructure and development for the GNU project, etc, along with the FSD.
The FSF is more useful than you give it credit for. But yeah, the conservancy is also a great organisation.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I actually summarized a section of the hilariously reactionary open letter in support of Stallman.
People genuinely signed onto “objective truth” and “linguistic purism” making him “vulnerable to misunderstanding.” If strawmen happen to stand among his most vocal supporters, that’s not remotely my problem.
But no, “there’s an AGPL that you can hunt for, and maybe someday they’ll have an opinion on machine learning” isn’t a counter-argument, to me. Those make my point for me, that they’ve never really cared about anything until it was far too late. I’m not going to tell you not to support them, but I’ll thank you for not telling me that I’m wrong for using their behavior and that of their supporters to assess them.
For what it’s worth, the claims of “linguistic purism” and “objective truth” are the same thing I was referring to by pedanticism, and “underestimating people’s feelings” is the same as what I was referring to by “bad time”. This is the same thing, written from a more positive viewpoint. It does not contradict what I said, as it doesn’t really say “too precise to understand”, which was your claim.
I also think it’s a bit unfair to expect everyone to have a concrete, fully fleshed out opinion on LLMs so soon. They’re evidently working towards it, so I’ll give them patience.
Look, if you want to claim that “linguistic purism” doesn’t mean “overly precise,” that’s your problem. If you want to support someone who “underestimates people’s feelings” (a.k.a. “a creep”), that’s your problem. If you want to believe that, any day now, a group that has fallen on its face for decades will finally work out its issues, that’s your problem. As I’ve asked, please stop trying to make it my problem. You’ve made your point that you’re a true believer, now walk away, because you’re only going to convince me that you’re a terrible person, from here.
I was being critical of his actions myself 🙄
There’s a time and a place for pedantry, that’s my point. And what I initially said is that Stallman did not do it at the right time, right place.
And all I said in my previous comment regarding RMS is that what I said and what that example you brought up to try to discredit what I said are conveying the same story, worded differently.
On the topic of wording, you can claim whatever you like, but “linguistic purism”, “overly precise”, whatever word you want to use to make your argument look better, falls under being pedantic, which if you’ll remember is what I said. I’m not claiming pedantry isn’t “overly precise”, technically it is, but that’s irrelevant in many cases where it is just unwanted. So how about you stop spinning my words to say something I didn’t.
Also, “overly precise” isn’t what you said, and not what I replied to. Don’t try to retroactively change this conversation. You said “too precise to be understood”, which nobody is in fact saying.
And “underestimated feelings” isn’t the “excuse” you think it is. Nor does it mean what you have said. It’s a fact. He underestimated the emotional reaction that would happen due to his misplaced pedantry. It’s kind of impossible to argue against that. Unless you’re saying he knew it would blow up in his face?
And I’m not talking about how the FSF might start dealing with future issues, I’m talking about how they’re already working towards it.
You sound like you need to go outside and touch grass. Do you really need to attack people on the internet because they don’t think the FSF is useless?
I’m also not sure what I’m “making your problem” and what I’m doing wrong to you, you brought something up, I replied addressing it. This is how you communicate. If you’re not willing to discuss something, you shouldn’t say anything at all.
My takeaway from this is that you’re quite emotionally immature and logically challenged. Oh and you should probably work on your reading comprehension. Unless you’re deliberately misconstruing what I said? Have a nice day.
For clarity, your first interaction with me was to accuse me of lying. I have twice asked you to leave me out of your fantasies. And yet, you’re still here telling me that I’ve done something dishonest by looking at the FSF and having an opinion. I’ve been polite. I have not attacked you. You’ve been insulting and taken everything personally.
Stop projecting your immaturity onto me. Stop imagining that you’re going to win my approval or respect. Stop imagining that my insistence that you stop bothering me is an attempt to have a conversation with you. And above all, go away, as I’ve requested three times.
You could always stop responding. I mean, I can’t help but notice you’ve not addressed anything I said in my last reply. With your changing quotes half way through and all, clearly trying to damage my argument with lies…
Oh and you absolutely have attacked me. Take one good look at the tone directed towards me in your last few replies. I’m a terrible person and all.
I respect that you have an opinion on the FSF, however the facts you were presenting to justify it to other people are either outdated or wrong. You can have your opinion, but you have to expect your facts to be scrutinised. Especially when you’re using them as a stick to beat things with, and attempting to bend them to fit your preconceptions.
Also, you were lying, yeah. Nobody has been unironically saying “he’s too precise to understand”, amongst other things, and your examples do not map to that meaning correctly. It’s an incredibly weak argument where there is much stronger link and more obvious meanings of those words (pedantry).
Why you keep replying I don’t understand. If it bothers you so much, stop. This is a public forum, you chose to engage in this topic, you have to expect that other people will also engage. This isn’t your personal soapbox.
Yep. You can’t take a direct request to stop harassing me. Blocking, like I should have done when I first spotted that you had nothing useful to say. Silly me for giving a person the benefit of the doubt.