Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation has resigned and he's also left his position in CSAIL at MIT.
Why is this significant? Stallman and the FSF were responsible for the creation of the GNU Project, widely used GNU licenses like the GPL, the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) and more that were used in the creation of Linux.
Posted on the FSF website last night was this notice:
On September 16, 2019, Richard M. Stallman, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation, resigned as president and from its board of directors. The board will be conducting a search for a new president, beginning immediately. Further details of the search will be published on fsf.org.
Stallman also noted on stallman.org how he's stepped away from MIT as well, with the below statement:
I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT. I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.
The question is—why? Well, an article on Vice picked up on comments Stallman made around convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Unsurprisingly, this caused quite a lot of outrage inside and outside the Linux community.
Not long after Neil McGovern, the GNOME Executive Director, made a blog post about it where they said they asked the FSF to cancel their membership. McGovern also noted that other people who they "greatly respect are doing the same" and that GNOME would sever their "historical ties between GNOME, GNU and the FSF" if Stallman did not step down.
McGovern of GNOME wasn't the only one to speak out about it, as the Software Freedom Conservancy also put out a post calling for Stallman to step down and no doubt there's others I'm not aware of.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: kaimanPersonally, I really wonder though how people can hang Stallman for his words, while nobody so much raises an eyebrow at the way Epstein's case was handled by the legal system. Makes me think priorities aren't what they ought to be these days.
Have you been on the Internet in the past couple months? Because everyone's pretty unhappy about Epstein's
Sarcasm off now, quit the bullshit. People being pissed about Epstein doesn't mean they can't be pissed about RMS writing apologetics for rapists. People in sexual slavery are incapable of consent. Underage people are legally incapable of consent. Whether the sex slave is being forced to pretend to consent or not doesn't matter, it's still immoral, it's still unethical, it's still a crime.
8 Likes, Who?
Arehandoro Sep 17, 2019
Quoting: namikoBeing "canceled" means being too offensive to work with, associate with or even to be spoken positively about at the worst.
Are some things so offensive as to make it necessary to remove someone from the public sphere, sometimes permanently? (banning, firing, refusing to associate with, maybe even being fined or arrested depending on where you live, etc.)
I don't know where the boundary on offense should be because I can't predict the future, times change, laws and policies also change in a waxing and waning of liberal to conservative and back again (in a general sense, no political parties implied). If this kind of de-personing is going to be the default, we're isolating a lot of people. There's a dark path to be gone down when we start thinking people are permanently irredeemable, even if they sincerely apologize. Or even if they are accepted again, can we say they're sincerely accepted, or is there a permanent, invisible "scarlet letter" of sorts that will hang over their heads indefinitely?
It feels good to be a part of a group that's "better" than the "bad" one(s), it's a rush that's probably chemically addictive. That's why I can't see "cancel culture" stopping anytime soon, it just feels too good to be more "right" than the person or group being accused.
If there's no road to forgiveness, can any of us honestly say that we're above reproach when it comes to our words or actions? Whether or not we think what Stallman's done or said is acceptable doesn't matter, it matters because we'd want a chance at forgiveness if we were in his shoes.
This is pretty much what I wanted to say, but couldn't find the right words for it. Thanks :)
Quoting: chrBut more trust (maybe sometimes?) and more empathy and more calming down and being friendly is what we all need.
THIS :)
Last edited by Arehandoro on 17 September 2019 at 4:31 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: GuestHow will this affect Linux gaming in the long run?
No effect as RMS condemned non-free software which most games are.
2 Likes, Who?
Well, as others wrote, another victim of cancel culture. Sadly, it has become a norm, we live in an age of Code Of Conducts which are crafted and pushed through not to improve work/community relations, but only to ostracize people with opposing opinions (often political ones). Where are the times when it would make it headlines if some (semi) public figure was banned from social network or kicked from work because of politely stating facts - as in based on science, not feelings or opinions. If you don't believe me, just search for James Damore and read his memo (I believe there was also a famous evolutionary biologist kicked out from university, because he dared to voice to press a scientific fact accepted by overwhelming majority of scientists in the field; or an ex-muslim kicked from twitter because he quoted the holy book).
Yeah, threatening to closing discussion, because someone can't handle opposing views (like at the Ion Fury article)? When you want a civilized discussion/community, why not just censor naughty words, if it becomes heated, instead of ruining it for everybody? ?
It is interesting, looking back in time, I realize I gradually stopped reading all news portals which started censoring opinions they disagreed with or removing discussions entirely. I guess it's probably because there are many times when comments are as, or even more, useful than the article itself (e.g. pointing out factual errors or biases, updates to the news, links to other sources if a reader wants to educate himself on the topic).
Quoting: Liam Dawethe comments can be closed at any time.
Yeah, threatening to closing discussion, because someone can't handle opposing views (like at the Ion Fury article)? When you want a civilized discussion/community, why not just censor naughty words, if it becomes heated, instead of ruining it for everybody? ?
It is interesting, looking back in time, I realize I gradually stopped reading all news portals which started censoring opinions they disagreed with or removing discussions entirely. I guess it's probably because there are many times when comments are as, or even more, useful than the article itself (e.g. pointing out factual errors or biases, updates to the news, links to other sources if a reader wants to educate himself on the topic).
4 Likes, Who?
RMS has long suffered from the 'you can be technically correct, and yet still act like a raging asshole about it' syndrome that Linus Torvalds, etc. also suffer from.
I don't like how media outlets have basically stretched and almost misquoted him in their headlines, because it makes it all sound like this is the only mis-step he's made over the years in this area. If that were the case, you'd not be wrong to be at least a little upset that this seems like a disproportionate reaction.
But that's the thing - in reality, this is more 'the straw that broke the camel's back'. RMS has been problematic for years, but the Epstein <-> MIT link was the kick at the end.
You can probably dig deeper if you're so inclined (here's one place to start - where Vice got their info.
I wish the FSF best of luck in finding someone new to champion their cause.
Last edited by Kithop on 17 September 2019 at 4:53 pm UTC
I don't like how media outlets have basically stretched and almost misquoted him in their headlines, because it makes it all sound like this is the only mis-step he's made over the years in this area. If that were the case, you'd not be wrong to be at least a little upset that this seems like a disproportionate reaction.
But that's the thing - in reality, this is more 'the straw that broke the camel's back'. RMS has been problematic for years, but the Epstein <-> MIT link was the kick at the end.
You can probably dig deeper if you're so inclined (here's one place to start - where Vice got their info.
I wish the FSF best of luck in finding someone new to champion their cause.
Last edited by Kithop on 17 September 2019 at 4:53 pm UTC
7 Likes, Who?
Doc Angelo Sep 17, 2019
I'm absolutely baffled how many people here in the comments simply accept shitty social rules as if they should not be different. One is to be silent about a topic that is controversial? Well... the situation is this: What is controversial is contemporary and changes all the time.
We shouldn't use the age of information to hold this info against each other. That's really the worst way to handle the new world and the new international networked society. It is not useful to discredit opinion A about topic X because the same person had opinion B about topic Y. We are blogging, chatting, posting, commenting and so on all the time. But as soon as we have as bigger amount of followers or have a managing or leading position, we have to be even more silent about topics?
Do leaders of countries have to be almost silent about almost anything, then? Of course not. Because then they would just be mouth pieces of the public opinion because they want to get re-elected.
People can't seriously think that this is acceptable or even to be defended. It should be gotten rid of.
We shouldn't use the age of information to hold this info against each other. That's really the worst way to handle the new world and the new international networked society. It is not useful to discredit opinion A about topic X because the same person had opinion B about topic Y. We are blogging, chatting, posting, commenting and so on all the time. But as soon as we have as bigger amount of followers or have a managing or leading position, we have to be even more silent about topics?
Do leaders of countries have to be almost silent about almost anything, then? Of course not. Because then they would just be mouth pieces of the public opinion because they want to get re-elected.
People can't seriously think that this is acceptable or even to be defended. It should be gotten rid of.
11 Likes, Who?
Doc Angelo Sep 17, 2019
Also... I'm absolutely not happy about the GNOME Foundation pulling such an publicity stunt. GNOME originates from the GNU project in the past, and the leader of GNOME reads a fucking VICE article for the latest news on RMS?
11 Likes, Who?
Quoting: monnefIt has absolutely nothing to do with opposing views. It's about people having respect, once people start losing that and going wild, comments can be closed or offending users posts removed. If people follow our rules, there's no issue.Quoting: Liam Dawethe comments can be closed at any time.
Yeah, threatening to closing discussion, because someone can't handle opposing views (like at the Ion Fury article)? When you want a civilized discussion/community, why not just censor naughty words, if it becomes heated, instead of ruining it for everybody? ?
It is interesting, looking back in time, I realize I gradually stopped reading all news portals which started censoring opinions they disagreed with or removing discussions entirely. I guess it's probably because there are many times when comments are as, or even more, useful than the article itself (e.g. pointing out factual errors or biases, updates to the news, links to other sources if a reader wants to educate himself on the topic).
As I've said for a long time, opposing views are welcome. Respect however, has to be shown to fellow readers.
For pointing out corrections, we have a dedicated bit above comments in a very defined box for people to use any time.
Last edited by Liam Dawe on 17 September 2019 at 5:12 pm UTC
13 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Doc AngeloDo leaders of countries have to be almost silent about almost anything, then? Of course not. Because then they would just be mouth pieces of the public opinion because they want to get re-elected.
... my sarcasm detector is beeping. :D
Kind of off-topic here, but I mean, 'mouth pieces of the public opinion because they want to get re-elected' is pretty much modus operandi for politics, isn't it?
Also, I'm a bit confused here, on 'shitty social rules'. The social rules that say it's okay for men in power to make sexist, homophobic, etc. jokes while at the office, surrounded not only by their straight male peers, but women, etc. who are supposed to smile and nod lest they lose their jobs for speaking out? 'Cause I'm totally fine with getting rid of those - those have held us back ever since men took over 'computer programming' and turned it into 'software engineering' and pushed women (perfectly smart, trained, capable women!) out of the field in droves. And we wonder why it's so hard to get women back into STEM - it's certainly not a lack of interest in the subject fields...
If you're the spokesperson for an organization, be it a non-profit or a C-level exec of a megacorporation, the opinions you air in public reflect on that organization, no matter how much you try to qualify it as personal vs. professional. That's part of being a public figure and spokesperson. Yeah, it sucks, and you should be able to have a private forum to discuss things. A mailing list to a large chunk of staff isn't that private forum.
8 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Liam DaweIt has absolutely nothing to do with opposing views. It's about people having respect, once people start losing that and going wild, comments can be closed or offending users posts removed. If people follow our rules, there's no issue.Respect for a person is earned, not freely given. I will try to be polite, respect other's opinions, but I will not implicitly respect them, revere them.
As I've said for a long time, opposing views are welcome. Respect however, has to be shown to fellow readers.
Why preemptively disable comment sections then? I can only conclude from your actions that it was clear to you that your article was biased, you found your opinion morally superior (which is of course strongly subjective and likely to change with age, yours or in general) and you closed comments section to censor opposing views. I simply viewed it as "My position is so weak, my arguments are not fact-based, so they cannot withstand a rational discussion, a public scrutiny, so I choose to silence my opposition.".
So, if my opinion, which is not targeted at an individual user, on an arbitrary term X would be that "they should have no extra rights because of X", "they should not be (even 'positively') discriminated" or "I view X as a mental illness", would my comment not be censored? I would be merely stating my view, my opinion, wouldn't I?
Quoting: Liam DaweFor pointing out corrections, we have a dedicated bit above comments in a very defined box for people to use any time.Which when comments are closed will see only staff, and only after some time (comments are instant), and only if staff deems it necessary and have time a correction will be added. Also that does not address the other reasons for comments I listed.
PS: It's entirely possible I misunderstood something (e.g. the respect part), English is not my native language after all.
1 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me