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: GustyGhostI am coming at this from a fairly isolated position as I do not dip my toes into social politics. All I know is that a figure which I respect has come under attack for what appear to be opinions and feelings.
Respecting someone doesn't mean you ignore it if they do something bad. Also the word "feelings" in these kinds of contexts can imply that there is a battle of between rational people and irrational people going on. With your side always being the rational ones. Whilst people can never be neatly fitted into "rational people" and "irrational people". No-one is truly rational probably. And no-one is entirely irrational either. And generally rather than there being tendencies of the side I don't like in a conflict being less rational, it is enormously more probable that I am being biased in interpreting the situation.
Quoting: GustyGhostSo we have the head of a computer movement stepping down because... commentary on the latest headline case? Which also has nothing to do with computers.
Yeah. Apparently if you make comments about things that upset or offend many people in a topic you're not an expert in, you get held responsible for your actions. What a surprise. You can't say whatever you want even if you're somewhat powerful or significant.
Quoting: GustyGhostDon't be surprised if in the next few days, articles are published detailing: John Smith, CEO/PR Rep/Analyst/whatever of Microsoft has graciously assumed the role of president of the FSF.
Maybe I am a nihilist for seeing a coordinated takedown in all of this but it's not like that kind of thing hasn't happened before.
You might or might not be a nihilist, but that wouldn't be connected to anything you said. If you want to use a trendy word for yourself that fits what you said a bit more, then "conspiracy theorist" is what you're looking for. But it's okay. It's normal for all of us to see patterns where there exist none and jump into conclusions. I just think that we can accomplish great things if we try to notice and avoid it.
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Liam DaweFrankly, I think that's tin-foil hat level stuff there.
MS is using and selling FOSS everywhere... especially with Azure and now Windows (SSH+WSL).
Yes they gave us SQL 2007, .Net Core, WSL, etc. These are all things to prevent people to move away from MS+Windows.
Where is Office for Linux? And much more important where can I download all source code from them?
Aren't they "loving Linux"?
Isn't InXile and Double Fine beeing aquired by MS?
Sure, I see some things different than others, but cannot ignore facts.
Edit:
Currently I don't see anything, that MS or Apple did to enrich the FOSS ecosystem, however Stallmann.
Last edited by johndoe on 17 September 2019 at 9:48 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
How can I filter out these kind of not (really) gaming related topics?
I tried adding in the filter the tag "Misc" (the tag for this article), but then I loose good gaming related articles that happen to carry the same "Misc" tag.
I tried adding in the filter the tag "Misc" (the tag for this article), but then I loose good gaming related articles that happen to carry the same "Misc" tag.
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: dubigrasuHow can I filter out these kind of not (really) gaming related topics?
I tried adding in the filter the tag "Misc" (the tag for this article), but then I loose good gaming related articles that happen to carry the same "Misc" tag.
Non-gaming related articles are usually extremely easy to spot on the main page.
Plus, they are not that common.
You make it sound like we get hundreds of articles a day.
Seriously, where is the problem? :)
Or is it just that you want to tell us that you absolutely don't like this topic. ;)
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: subWell, there's an "Content preferences" option on the users control panel, allowing to filter out certain articles based on topics/tags. I'm just asking how can use I use that option for articles like this. Isn't that the reason that option is there?Quoting: dubigrasuHow can I filter out these kind of not (really) gaming related topics?
I tried adding in the filter the tag "Misc" (the tag for this article), but then I loose good gaming related articles that happen to carry the same "Misc" tag.
Non-gaming related articles are usually extremely easy to spot on the main page.
Plus, they are not that common.
You make it sound like we get hundreds of articles a day.
Seriously, where is the problem? :)
Or is it just that you want to tell us that you absolutely don't like this topic. ;)
1 Likes, Who?
Curios what is the best way to handle this.
Should an organization terminate all contacts with an individual for their opinions ?
Don't agree with what Stallman said but don't think he should be fired for it/forced into resignation.
They could just issue a statement publicly saying "we don't agree or hold these views" and privately message him"wtf dude"
Not sure how much this applies to him being head of the FSF but those were mailing lists and opinions not a public statement.
And like someone said , a lot of these "news" sites are more clickbait than actual journalism.
Also worried anything someone said at one point that's a bit controversial can be spun to get rid of them.
How many dark jokes have all of us heard and told in private with close friends that we dare not say to random passers by on the street.
Seems we are still figuring out this digital age , and time will tell what it evolves into.
Should an organization terminate all contacts with an individual for their opinions ?
Don't agree with what Stallman said but don't think he should be fired for it/forced into resignation.
They could just issue a statement publicly saying "we don't agree or hold these views" and privately message him"wtf dude"
Not sure how much this applies to him being head of the FSF but those were mailing lists and opinions not a public statement.
And like someone said , a lot of these "news" sites are more clickbait than actual journalism.
Also worried anything someone said at one point that's a bit controversial can be spun to get rid of them.
How many dark jokes have all of us heard and told in private with close friends that we dare not say to random passers by on the street.
Seems we are still figuring out this digital age , and time will tell what it evolves into.
5 Likes, Who?
My take on this:
Stallman is opinionated, pedantic, and tries to be precise in his thinking. And in certain respects not very social. So his comments on this stuff involved a certain amount of what many would consider hair-splitting: Trying to define things carefully both in terms of what they are and what they are not, looking at things dispassionately and parsing them. (I also think he somewhat underestimates the complexity of this sort of thing and so overestimates his ability to come to good conclusions without any relevant background) Given that approach, no matter what his specific position it was going to end up looking bad in a situation where people are upset (for damn good reasons) and calling for broad, blanket moral condemnations.
Probably I wouldn't agree with the specifics of what Stallman thought about the subject, although the one specific quote I've seen in this thread seems reasonable within the very specific point it is making. People may draw implications from that quote, like that Stallman had more general ideas that were apologetics for similar bad stuff, but I don't think that follows--he was making a specific point about a specific definition and its application to a specific act. If you'd asked him if Minsky was doing a total douche move, or committing some other crime that wasn't rape, he might well have said yes. He was being pedantic, and tone deaf about the fact that this was the wrong time to be pedantic.
So OK, I think this is clearly throwing Stallman overboard. And it has nothing to do with "cancel culture" or "SJWs" or whatever bullshit--Epstein was horribly evil, and lots of people were colluding with him, and people are furious and want some blood, whether they're "SJWs" or not. And once they get their blood up they don't want to hear someone being dispassionate about it and they're not going to look at the fine print when they see something that looks bad. This tends to be true of people whatever their politics, and I would hope that people are none too pleased with scuzzbucket rich folks using kids for sex, whatever their politics. If there's someone whose politics are OK with that, I'm fine with cancel-culturing them.
But what I notice is that it's clear a fair number of other MIT people did actual things, like taking Epstein's money and defending taking Epstein's money and probably knowing all along just how much of a douchebag he was and helping to cover it up. But it's Stallman, who wasn't involved in any of that, and who would be far more likely to have refused the money than any of these Negroponte types, who gets hung out to dry. Note the way only Stallman's name stays on that email string. Stallman's an easy sacrifice because he wasn't a power broker and always made the powerful types uncomfortable. It's the upper echelon sleazebags that actually need to be burned at the stake; Stallman is a convenient patsy to take the heat.
Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 17 September 2019 at 11:55 pm UTC
Stallman is opinionated, pedantic, and tries to be precise in his thinking. And in certain respects not very social. So his comments on this stuff involved a certain amount of what many would consider hair-splitting: Trying to define things carefully both in terms of what they are and what they are not, looking at things dispassionately and parsing them. (I also think he somewhat underestimates the complexity of this sort of thing and so overestimates his ability to come to good conclusions without any relevant background) Given that approach, no matter what his specific position it was going to end up looking bad in a situation where people are upset (for damn good reasons) and calling for broad, blanket moral condemnations.
Probably I wouldn't agree with the specifics of what Stallman thought about the subject, although the one specific quote I've seen in this thread seems reasonable within the very specific point it is making. People may draw implications from that quote, like that Stallman had more general ideas that were apologetics for similar bad stuff, but I don't think that follows--he was making a specific point about a specific definition and its application to a specific act. If you'd asked him if Minsky was doing a total douche move, or committing some other crime that wasn't rape, he might well have said yes. He was being pedantic, and tone deaf about the fact that this was the wrong time to be pedantic.
So OK, I think this is clearly throwing Stallman overboard. And it has nothing to do with "cancel culture" or "SJWs" or whatever bullshit--Epstein was horribly evil, and lots of people were colluding with him, and people are furious and want some blood, whether they're "SJWs" or not. And once they get their blood up they don't want to hear someone being dispassionate about it and they're not going to look at the fine print when they see something that looks bad. This tends to be true of people whatever their politics, and I would hope that people are none too pleased with scuzzbucket rich folks using kids for sex, whatever their politics. If there's someone whose politics are OK with that, I'm fine with cancel-culturing them.
But what I notice is that it's clear a fair number of other MIT people did actual things, like taking Epstein's money and defending taking Epstein's money and probably knowing all along just how much of a douchebag he was and helping to cover it up. But it's Stallman, who wasn't involved in any of that, and who would be far more likely to have refused the money than any of these Negroponte types, who gets hung out to dry. Note the way only Stallman's name stays on that email string. Stallman's an easy sacrifice because he wasn't a power broker and always made the powerful types uncomfortable. It's the upper echelon sleazebags that actually need to be burned at the stake; Stallman is a convenient patsy to take the heat.
Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 17 September 2019 at 11:55 pm UTC
11 Likes, Who?
TheLinuxPleb Sep 18, 2019
Opinions about other stuff should be just that. Opinions about other stuff. Has nothing to do with the work the guy was doing. He also has not been put in jail or anything so he has not done anything wrong. Simple as that. Someone/something clearly wanted to smoke him out.
5 Likes, Who?
orochi_kyo Sep 18, 2019
The only sin Stallman committed here is to forgot that PEOPLE CANT HAVE AN OPINION THESE DAYS, you have to shut the f/*c up or follow the hypocrite standard of having the same opinion of the all SJW media.
And you cant tell anyone what you really think, we live in a de-facto censorship, not email, not social networks, anyone!!. Remember that guy that told a joke to his friend on the ear about "big dongle" in a computer conference and a feminist just heard him and make it public? He lost his job. And the SJW media was fine with it.
Human relationships are overrated. SJWs destroyed freedom of speech. It doesnt matter if opinions are unpopular or arent political correct, you should respect them and not make a fuss about it.
And you cant tell anyone what you really think, we live in a de-facto censorship, not email, not social networks, anyone!!. Remember that guy that told a joke to his friend on the ear about "big dongle" in a computer conference and a feminist just heard him and make it public? He lost his job. And the SJW media was fine with it.
Human relationships are overrated. SJWs destroyed freedom of speech. It doesnt matter if opinions are unpopular or arent political correct, you should respect them and not make a fuss about it.
6 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Liam DaweWell, frankly Liam, I think if we'd told you a year or two ago that a respected tech billionaire who went around donating tons of money to science was a vicious pimp rapist who coerced children into sexual slavery and had bunches of the best and brightest going to his sex parties and they were all in on keeping it quiet, you'd have said that was tin foil hat stuff. But here we are.Quoting: johndoeFrankly, I think that's tin-foil hat level stuff there.Quoting: GustyGhostDon't be surprised if in the next few days, articles are published detailing: John Smith, CEO/PR Rep/Analyst/whatever of Microsoft has graciously assumed the role of president of the FSF.
This is exactly what I think, too.
There is a lot more going on behind the scenes.
I also read every day linux news form "lxer.com". There you can read some more "facts" what is going on at FSF - I really don't like it.
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.
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me