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: Cyba.CowboyMeanwhile, everyone conveniently "forgets" that Donald Trump, "Prince" Philip and Stephen Hawking (among others) have all been accused of associating with Jeffrey Epstein to some degree... Most of them on a close, regular basis and some of them - notably "Prince" Philip and Donald Trump - have repeatedly had accusations of sexual misconduct made against them, often in the company of or courtesy of an arrangement by Jeffrey Epstein.Couple of corrections:
I haven't read Stallman's latest comments personally, but my understanding is that one of the comments which got him in hot water was a comment that suggested some of these chicks went into these situations of their own free will... Which is a perfectly valid - and very likely accurate - point (like it or not, most 12+ year old children of both sexes have a much better understanding of sex than they should, at least these days!).
And why is no one asking where the parents were, when these "vulnerable" chicks were flying around the world screwing rich and powerful people / "royalty"? If my daughter was that age and was flying around with a "prince" ad some wealthy dude in a private jet, I'd expect people to be asking some awfully big questions!
--It's not prince Philip. It's prince Andrew, the Queen's younger son, prince Charles' younger brother. His niche in the family seems to be operating as a sort of trade ambassador for Britain, hobnobbing with arms dealers and whatnot; I've always thought he was on the sleazy side.
--Your understanding of the comments is incorrect. The core one that got him in hot water has been quoted here a couple of times:
QuoteWe can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him [Minsky] as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.I have now looked at the email chain some; he says further
QuoteWe know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that.So what he was saying was, it's likely a girl would have been faking being willing even though she most likely wasn't actually willing. He was not suggesting Epstein wasn't coercing them. To the contrary, he says flat out that Epstein was.
You do seem to be suggesting that; I don't agree. The way it seems to have gone is, this stylish obviously rich woman would find these dirt poor kids and recruit them on the basis of being basically eye candy/service staff. It's not like there aren't plenty of people who do that with no sex attached. Then once they were on sites, usually distant from their homes and isolated, they'd be expected to do what the other kids were doing; Darth Epstein would be, in a more jolly way than Vader, "I am altering the deal; pray I don't alter it any further." It's not that hard to pressure most people once they're cut off and alone, let alone kids.
Presumably most of them didn't tell their parents just what was going down, just that they were making good (by the standards of dirt poor families) money. It's possible some parents made a stink and successfully got their kids back. It's possible some parents tried and were stonewalled, and if you're a poor person how are you going to expect it to play out if you try to get the cops to go after a billionaire? But sure, some of those parents probably sucked. Some of those parents were probably in jail. Not sure what makes that relevant though--what, it's OK if bad things happen to kids as long as they have bad parents? Predators aren't culpable, it's their victims' fault for not having better parents to defend them? I don't get it.
Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 18 September 2019 at 5:10 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Cyba.Cowboy Sep 19, 2019
Quoting: LungDragoWe truly live in a f*cked up world. Just like in the Orwell game. Destroy someone by publicizing a statement out of context. So easy!
2 + 2 = 5
Slightly off-topic, but ha, you should come to Australia... "1984" is alive and well here.
Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe way it seems to have gone is, this stylish obviously rich woman would find these dirt poor kids and recruit them on the basis of being basically eye candy/service staff. It's not like there aren't plenty of people who do that with no sex attached. Then once they were on sites, usually distant from their homes and isolated, they'd be expected to do what the other kids were doing; Darth Epstein would be, in a more jolly way than Vader, "I am altering the deal; pray I don't alter it any further." It's not that hard to pressure most people once they're cut off and alone, let alone kids.
Presumably most of them didn't tell their parents just what was going down, just that they were making good (by the standards of dirt poor families) money. It's possible some parents made a stink and successfully got their kids back. It's possible some parents tried and were stonewalled, and if you're a poor person how are you going to expect it to play out if you try to get the cops to go after a billionaire? But sure, some of those parents probably sucked. Some of those parents were probably in jail. Not sure what makes that relevant though--what, it's OK if bad things happen to kids as long as they have bad parents? Predators aren't culpable, it's their victims' fault for not having better parents to defend them? I don't get it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting the blame back onto the victims here and whilst we will never be privvy to the full facts, I do believe that at least some of these girls were carefully "encouraged" to participate in sexual misconduct with Epstein and his buddies, if not all of them (the girls)... With so much money and power at your disposal, I suspect it would be pretty easy to nudge people in the "right" direction.
My point that I was saying (at least for that part of my post), is that there are some pretty valid questions which need to be asked, and people are conveniently refusing to seek answers and / or are ignore these facts in favor of the little issues - such as some geek sitting at a desk who should know better than to comment on a highly controversial topic in his position...
Regarding the "parents" thing, I think it is unfair to blanket them all as being in jail or having abandoned these kids and whatnot, though that may be the case for some of them... In saying that, as I explained to my wife, the most likely scenario is that a lot of these parents simply "turned a blind eye" in hopes of rubbing shoulders with the wealthy and the elite - it would not be the first time a parent (from any class of society) has neglected their moral and legal responsibilities in favor of such an outcome.
As a father, the thought of that makes me cringe, but sadly, it happens all the time, and the Epstein thing is not even that bad compared to what some "parents" do in the hopes of rubbing shoulders with the wealthy and the elite.
The other issue is, and this is a tricky one, is the fact that a lot of people are simply ignoring the rather serious accusations against "Prince" Andrew, Donald Trump and various others who are wealthy and / or powerful...
What makes it "tricky"?
Well, look at his suicide... The entire thing is surrounded by "facts" that just don't match up, despite the fact that he was a high-profile prisoner in one of the most "secure" prisons in America.
And the fact that everyone is completely avoiding the topic of Epstein's buddies being participants in some or all of Epstein's activities, instead focussing on the smaller issues, such as a geek / academic who was silly enough to voice some controversial opinions about an already controversial topic.
It would be unrealistic to expect anything to come out of any investigation against Epstein's long list of wealthy and powerful buddies - this stuff happens all the time (you're kidding yourself if you think the wealthy / elite don't do this all the time!) and they don't get away with it for no reason... But that doesn't mean everyone needs to ignore the fact that this sort of thing was happening.
Last edited by Cyba.Cowboy on 19 September 2019 at 6:23 am UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Cyba.CowboyI tend to view Epstein as a symptom of wider problems. And yeah, consider that he was doing his crap for years, getting a rep for his parties and so on, and as far as I can make out none of the attendees ever denounced him. Too much concentrated wealth and power gives those wealthy and powerful the ability to control other people, too much distance between upper classes and the rest makes those upper classes dehumanize the rest of us. The concentration is getting higher, the distance is getting larger. So Epstein types will be out there doing that kind of thing because they can, and because they don't see us as human but just something to be exploited. Consider the phrase "human resources" and think about what it actually means. Epstein individually was just the tip of the iceberg.Quoting: LungDragoWe truly live in a f*cked up world. Just like in the Orwell game. Destroy someone by publicizing a statement out of context. So easy!
2 + 2 = 5
Slightly off-topic, but ha, you should come to Australia... "1984" is alive and well here.
Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe way it seems to have gone is, this stylish obviously rich woman would find these dirt poor kids and recruit them on the basis of being basically eye candy/service staff. It's not like there aren't plenty of people who do that with no sex attached. Then once they were on sites, usually distant from their homes and isolated, they'd be expected to do what the other kids were doing; Darth Epstein would be, in a more jolly way than Vader, "I am altering the deal; pray I don't alter it any further." It's not that hard to pressure most people once they're cut off and alone, let alone kids.
Presumably most of them didn't tell their parents just what was going down, just that they were making good (by the standards of dirt poor families) money. It's possible some parents made a stink and successfully got their kids back. It's possible some parents tried and were stonewalled, and if you're a poor person how are you going to expect it to play out if you try to get the cops to go after a billionaire? But sure, some of those parents probably sucked. Some of those parents were probably in jail. Not sure what makes that relevant though--what, it's OK if bad things happen to kids as long as they have bad parents? Predators aren't culpable, it's their victims' fault for not having better parents to defend them? I don't get it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting the blame back onto the victims here and whilst we will never be privvy to the full facts, I do believe that at least some of these girls were carefully "encouraged" to participate in sexual misconduct with Epstein and his buddies, if not all of them (the girls)... With so much money and power at your disposal, I suspect it would be pretty easy to nudge people in the "right" direction.
My point that I was saying (at least for that part of my post), is that there are some pretty valid questions which need to be asked, and people are conveniently refusing to seek answers and / or are ignore these facts in favor of the little issues - such as some geek sitting at a desk who should know better than to comment on a highly controversial topic in his position...
Regarding the "parents" thing, I think it is unfair to blanket them all as being in jail or having abandoned these kids and whatnot, though that may be the case for some of them... In saying that, as I explained to my wife, the most likely scenario is that a lot of these parents simply "turned a blind eye" in hopes of rubbing shoulders with the wealthy and the elite - it would not be the first time a parent (from any class of society) has neglected their moral and legal responsibilities in favor of such an outcome.
As a father, the thought of that makes me cringe, but sadly, it happens all the time, and the Epstein thing is not even that bad compared to what some "parents" do in the hopes of rubbing shoulders with the wealthy and the elite.
The other issue is, and this is a tricky one, is the fact that a lot of people are simply ignoring the rather serious accusations against "Prince" Andrew, Donald Trump and various others who are wealthy and / or powerful...
What makes it "tricky"?
Well, look at his suicide... The entire thing is surrounded by "facts" that just don't match up, despite the fact that he was a high-profile prisoner in one of the most "secure" prisons in America.
And the fact that everyone is completely avoiding the topic of Epstein's buddies being participants in some or all of Epstein's activities, instead focussing on the smaller issues, such as a geek / academic who was silly enough to voice some controversial opinions about an already controversial topic.
It would be unrealistic to expect anything to come out of any investigation against Epstein's long list of wealthy and powerful buddies - this stuff happens all the time (you're kidding yourself if you think the wealthy / elite don't do this all the time!) and they don't get away with it for no reason... But that doesn't mean everyone needs to ignore the fact that this sort of thing was happening.
4 Likes, Who?
Quoting: dubigrasuSuch discussion and requests need to be made in the forum where it can be seen properly, not buried in the article comments please.Quoting: g000hYes, that's basically what I asked for.Quoting: dubigrasuQuoting: Purple Library GuyYeah sure, but I'm asking specifically about the control panel settings.Quoting: dubigrasuHow can I filter out these kind of not (really) gaming related topics?I filter out topics I'm not interested in by reading the article's title. Works pretty well.
I think if Liam added a NON-GAMING tag, and added it to articles like this one, then it would solve Dubigrasi's issue (Not wishing to view non-gaming articles.)
Through the use of tags, any reader of this site can adjust the content of what he wants/needs to see.
Yeah sure, you can choose not to read what you don't need. But the functionality is there for a reason, and is already used for other topics.
You're an AMD user and not interested of Nvidia drivers/software related news?...use the Nvidia tag to filter out those news.
You do only native gaming and don't wanna hear about Proton?...use the SteamPlay tag, and so on.
Or of course, you can use tags to specifically search for the same subjects. Is just a handy option to have.
So I don't think is an unreasonable request for a tag in this case. What actually the tag name would be, that's up to Liam.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Liam DaweSuch discussion and requests need to be made in the forum where it can be seen properly, not buried in the article comments please.Ok, thanks, I'll do that.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: devnull> Frankly, I think that's tin-foil hat level stuff there.
Ohh Liam... poor guy. I give you Red Hat:
Red Hate
QuoteRed Hat urges the FSF board to seize the opportunity during its current leadership succession by appointing a president and members of its board that are more diverse, including from a national, racial and gender perspective.
Wolves be a circlin kids. Lot of unemployed ex management types who are used to being overpaid PHB's smell blood.
You cut out all context, so I'll put it back in:
"I simply can't understand how it is possible that such companies like MS or Apple can even get a seat at FSF?! Something bad is going on IMHO."
So, how does what you linked refer in any way, shape or form to "such companies like MS or Apple can even get a seat at FSF"? It's about diversity in the FSF.
1 Likes, Who?
It took a characterization of his remarks in a disturbing twisted way to finally get rid of him.
But his real remarks, and harassment should have been enough to get rid of him 20 years ago.
It's been more than 20 years of disturbing sexual, harassing, and disparaging remarks made by him.
Honestly never should have gotten to this point, he should have been removed and fired many many years ago.
The truly disturbing part is that people, are acting like the BS that went down in the news cycle means he did nothing wrong.
It's okay to appreciate his work and devotion to the Free Software Movement, and still not want him to be celebrated due to his sexual harassment, and disturbing ideas that got ignored for years due to the culture he was a part of.
But his real remarks, and harassment should have been enough to get rid of him 20 years ago.
It's been more than 20 years of disturbing sexual, harassing, and disparaging remarks made by him.
Honestly never should have gotten to this point, he should have been removed and fired many many years ago.
The truly disturbing part is that people, are acting like the BS that went down in the news cycle means he did nothing wrong.
It's okay to appreciate his work and devotion to the Free Software Movement, and still not want him to be celebrated due to his sexual harassment, and disturbing ideas that got ignored for years due to the culture he was a part of.
0 Likes
Doc Angelo Sep 22, 2019
Quoting: KijBetaIt took a characterization of his remarks in a disturbing twisted way to finally get rid of him.
But his real remarks, and harassment should have been enough to get rid of him 20 years ago.
It's been more than 20 years of disturbing sexual, harassing, and disparaging remarks made by him.
Honestly never should have gotten to this point, he should have been removed and fired many many years ago.
The truly disturbing part is that people, are acting like the BS that went down in the news cycle means he did nothing wrong.
It's okay to appreciate his work and devotion to the Free Software Movement, and still not want him to be celebrated due to his sexual harassment, and disturbing ideas that got ignored for years due to the culture he was a part of.
RMS harassed other people? What did he do to others? Is there any source on that? And what do you mean with "culture he was part of"? What kind of culture?
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: PatolaQuoting: rustybroomhandleQED. This is a hallmark of cancel culture, there is no discussion, simply personal attacks, sometimes quite vicious ones. Some subjects cannot be discussed. Some opinions cannot be uttered. This is the new, more radical form of making something taboo. It has grave personal consequences.Quoting: PatolaAnother victim of cancel culture...
Nobody who uses the phrase "cancel culture" with a straight face can be taken seriously. Off to the kids table with you.
Stallman lost his jobs because he said something that could be considered a defense of a well known convicted sex offender. He would have lost his jobs 30 years ago for saying the same.
Losing his jobs had nothing to do with any modern day cancel culture and everything to do with our society's eternal vilification of rapist, paedophiles and sex offenders. As you said, "some opinions cannot be offered" and defending a sex offender is one.
I'm sure Stallman will rail against societies closed mindedness but he won't find may defenders.
0 Likes
Quoting: DiableStallman lost his jobs because he said something that could be considered a defense of a well known convicted sex offender.Well, except it couldn't. He was very very unequivocal about the well known convicted sex offender being a horrible rapist. He said something that could be considered a defence of Marvin Minsky, who as far as I know was not a well known convicted sex offender. His entire argument was that Minsky might not have known just how horrible Epstein was being. That is not a defence of Epstein and cannot be considered one without a massive dose of intellectual dishonesty.
Now, he may be wrong--frankly, I think it would take some world class naivete for a Minsky to think this girl is throwing herself at him because she's a huge groupie for aging AI research pioneers. But that's a somewhat different issue.
Quoting: DiableHe would have lost his jobs 30 years ago for saying the same.Quite likely. Rush to judgment without looking at the facts is not a new thing under the sun. But it wouldn't have been right 30 years ago, either.
Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 22 September 2019 at 6:38 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me