FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
You might know of a contributor or organization who has done significant and user-empowering work on free software. We invite you to take a moment to show them (and tell us) that you care, by nominating them for an award in one of three categories: the Award for the Advancement of Free Software, the Award for Projects of Social Benefit, or the Award for Outstanding New Free Software Contributor. Don't assume that someone else will nominate them -- too often, everyone assuming someone else will express the appreciation means that it never happens. As taking initiative and speaking up for the community are important parts of free software, why not take the time yourself to make sure your voice is heard?"
Posted Sep 5, 2020 17:55 UTC (Sat)
by sheepdestroyer (guest, #54968)
[Link] (31 responses)
Eligibility:
Previous winners include Deborah Nicholson, Karen Sandler, Alexandre Oliva, Werner Koch, Sébastien Jodogne, Matthew Garrett, Dr. Fernando Perez, Yukihiro Matsumoto, Rob Savoye, John Gilmore, Wietse Venema, Harald Welte, Ted Ts'o, Andrew Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Alan Cox, Larry Lessig, Guido van Rossum, Brian Paul, Miguel de Icaza and Larry Wall.
I nominated Richard Stallman as he fits all those requirements, for : GNU and FSF itself.
Posted Sep 5, 2020 18:16 UTC (Sat)
by donbarry (guest, #10485)
[Link]
In fact when the importance of his conceptions is being proven every day as opportunism and the money to be made from it threatens to an unprecedented degree what has been achieved, Stallman's voice is more important than ever.
Posted Sep 5, 2020 18:52 UTC (Sat)
by JorgePMorais (guest, #134851)
[Link]
Posted Sep 6, 2020 15:48 UTC (Sun)
by gnu (guest, #65)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 6, 2020 18:18 UTC (Sun)
by leromarinvit (subscriber, #56850)
[Link]
Just kidding. I wholeheartedly agree that he deserves to be nominated for his lifelong work for Free Software.
Posted Sep 6, 2020 18:36 UTC (Sun)
by JorgePMorais (guest, #134851)
[Link]
Posted Sep 6, 2020 19:58 UTC (Sun)
by jazzy (subscriber, #132608)
[Link]
Posted Sep 7, 2020 3:46 UTC (Mon)
by atai (subscriber, #10977)
[Link] (24 responses)
Posted Sep 7, 2020 5:26 UTC (Mon)
by sheepdestroyer (guest, #54968)
[Link]
Posted Sep 7, 2020 13:36 UTC (Mon)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (22 responses)
On the other hand he may still be a member of the award committee, I'm not sure... I haven't checked to see who's on the committee. If he is then he's still not eligible.
But as pointed out, simply winning some other award from some other organization doesn't mean he can't win this one.
Posted Sep 8, 2020 1:42 UTC (Tue)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (20 responses)
(People will now reply to this comment, arguing that RMS was not "under a cloud" when he resigned. I'm talking about optics, not substance. I explicitly do not want to rehash the substantive argument again here; we've already discussed it to death in previous stories about RMS. There is very little to be gained by repeating the same arguments over and over again, and I will not engage with replies that attempt to do so. My sole point is that, regardless of whether RMS did anything wrong, quite a few people believed that he did, and that belief is still held by some people today. You may consider those people ignorant or foolish, but that is entirely beside the point. RMS and the FSF chose to solve this optics problem by parting ways, and I do not believe that they are prepared to go back on that decision so quickly.)
Posted Sep 8, 2020 1:48 UTC (Tue)
by atai (subscriber, #10977)
[Link] (19 responses)
The award is to further push for free software recognition, and giving the award to RMS is like giving the Nobel Price to Nobel. I would guess RMS will not want him nominated for that is not the purpose of the FSF award.
Posted Sep 8, 2020 2:40 UTC (Tue)
by thumperward (guest, #34368)
[Link] (17 responses)
At the very least, JorgePMorais and donbarry (both of whom have repeatedly used this comments section as a platform for this view without even subscribing to the site) should have their ability to continue to contribute revoked, lest the continued lack of moderation of such comments be seen as endorsement of them.
Posted Sep 8, 2020 4:09 UTC (Tue)
by donbarry (guest, #10485)
[Link] (1 responses)
These are precisely the harpies who are indifferent to what RMS built, but have their own agendas that are incompatible with free and open discussion. And the veiled threat at LWN itself, should they not join the witch-hunt.
Remarkable.. Just remarkable.
Posted Sep 8, 2020 13:35 UTC (Tue)
by thumperward (guest, #34368)
[Link]
Posted Sep 9, 2020 15:47 UTC (Wed)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Sep 10, 2020 5:36 UTC (Thu)
by thumperward (guest, #34368)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 10, 2020 9:56 UTC (Thu)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
Maybe not that useful, considering that he speaks for himself and not the Debian project as a whole.
Posted Sep 11, 2020 17:42 UTC (Fri)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link]
Posted Sep 9, 2020 22:29 UTC (Wed)
by JorgePMorais (guest, #134851)
[Link] (10 responses)
Please provide the alleged "well-documented records of sexual harrassment".
> JorgePMorais and donbarry (both of whom have repeatedly used this comments section as a platform for this view without even subscribing to the site)
I did not subscribe before because the Brazilian Real is severely undervalued against the US dollar, and I already donate regularly to the FSF, Disroot and Liberapay. But today I have decided to subscribe to LWN at the starving hacker level. I may upgrade to the professional hacker level if the Real gains a little more value.
> should have their ability to continue to contribute revoked, lest the continued lack of moderation of such comments be seen as endorsement of them.
That is clearly disproportionate (to say the least) and counterproductive to freedom of speech. I kindly refer you to the following articles:
- https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/08/05/censorship-... "The Censorship of ’Cancel Culture’ May Ultimately Be Most Dangerous for Social Justice Champions" (Common Dreams, ≃5 min read)
- https://wetheweb.org/2020/08/13/cancel-we-the-web/ "#Cancel We The Web?" (wetheweb.org, ≃12 min read)
- https://jorgemorais.gitlab.io/justice-for-rms/ "Justice for Dr. Richard Matthew Stallman"
- https://medium.com/@whoisylvia/richard-stallman-has-been-... "Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him" (Medium, 3 min read)
Regards
Posted Sep 13, 2020 9:05 UTC (Sun)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (9 responses)
Please stop trotting this ridiculous argument out. Freedom of association is part and parcel of freedom of speech. If I do not wish to associate with person X, because I disapprove of something they have said or done, then you cannot force me to do so, or else you violate my freedom of speech. If cancel culture is contrary to freedom of speech, then freedom of speech is logically inconsistent.
Posted Sep 13, 2020 20:36 UTC (Sun)
by JorgePMorais (guest, #134851)
[Link] (8 responses)
1: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/08/05/censorship-... "The Censorship of ’Cancel Culture’ May Ultimately Be Most Dangerous for Social Justice Champions" (Common Dreams, ≃5 min read)
Posted Sep 14, 2020 2:42 UTC (Mon)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (7 responses)
If you wish to argue that my exercise of freedom of association is unwise for some reason that is unrelated to free speech, then do so. But when you use "free speech" to argue against an exercise of free speech, your argument is logically inconsistent, and I see no reason to take it at all seriously, nor to read any of the materials you have provided. Your position is self-contradictory, and I do not need to read pages and pages of material trying to justify it when it this much is already obvious to me.
Posted Sep 14, 2020 18:07 UTC (Mon)
by JorgePMorais (guest, #134851)
[Link] (6 responses)
Such a society would be, regarding freedom of speech and association, analogous to XIX century England regarding economic justice: on paper, according to a distorted ideology, England was free because the State was limited; but in reality, workers were miserable wage slaves. Elbonia is similar: on paper, society is free from censorship and restrictions of association. In reality, Elbonians live in fear, and no one dares challenge orthodoxy in any way.
The USA is not yet such a dystopia, but it is only a matter of degree. If you agree with me that Elbonians are not free, then you agree with me that is not always just and wise to punish (through social exclusion) heterodox people, and that the guidelines for punishing speech should be actually debated and complaints should at least be heard.
I ask you to do some 15 min reading about this very important subject. I gave you good material, from the phenomenal Nadine Strossen (first female president of the ACLU) and Suzanne Nossel (former executive director of Amnesty International USA). There is also section 6 of my essay, written by a nobody, but written carefully and with reasonable sources, and comprising less than 2.5 pages of text.
I apologize for any English mistakes. I have never been to an English-speaking country.
Posted Sep 14, 2020 19:07 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (5 responses)
Yup, I agree with you this is unacceptable ...
> and be strictly shunned by everyone.
Because everyone is forced to shun them, or because everyone CHOOSES to shun them?!
THIS is where I have a *big* problem with the more aggressive proponents of free speech. The only way you can have TRUE freedom of speech is to live as a hermit away from society. Otherwise your "freedom of speech" means that my freedom of speech must be denied. It's a "pick two - any two - of three", and I'm afraid I don't value my freedom of speech to the exclusion of anything else!
Oh yes, I'm a Brit.
Cheers,
Posted Oct 18, 2020 18:43 UTC (Sun)
by JorgePMorais (guest, #134851)
[Link] (4 responses)
>> and be strictly shunned by everyone.
Even when it is individually chosen by the censor, social censorship is not always just.
> THIS is where I have a *big* problem with the more aggressive proponents of free speech. The only way you can have TRUE freedom of speech is to live as a hermit away from society. Otherwise your "freedom of speech" means that my freedom of speech must be denied. It's a "pick two - any two - of three", and I'm afraid I don't value my freedom of speech to the exclusion of anything else!
But I do /not/ demand absolute free speech. I only say that censorship (including by civil society) must be carefully and clearly justified. For one example, it seems reasonable to me (though I haven't studied the subject enough to form a conviction) to censor actual fascism. The justification is that if we allow the fascists to organize and rise to power, then they will establish censorship, brutality and general tyranny. Then, since they will control the State and have great force at their disposal (including the police and the army), removing them from power will cost a huge amount of blood and may even be infeasible. Of course, for this to be just, we must carefully define /fascism/.
The original poster argued that I should be censored for defending Stallman without subscribing to LWN, merely because of his twisted interpretation that I supported "powerful people [...] [with] well-documented records of sexual harrassment [sic]"---and he didn't even substantiate his claims. Unjustifiable censorship.
And Stallman was vilified for a twisted interpretation of his defense of Minsky. As I explain in my essay, it is clear that he did /not/ argue that any Epstein victim was really /entirely willing/. The plausible accusation against Stallman would be of lacking reasonable understanding of romantic relationships and unintentionally making insensitive remarks that could remotely affect sexual abuse victims (please read my essay, at least sections 1 and 2, which are short). Stallman's punishment was severely out of proportion. Regarding the accounts of he making unwanted sexual advances on women, please read the arguments of Nadine Strossen on <https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web>, and then section 7 of my essay (only three paragraphs).
> Oh yes, I'm a Brit.
I hope I did not offend you. I picked "liberal" XIX century England because it was a good analogy to my argument, and because I happen to have recently read about the Irish potato famine, which was an atrocity of XIX century English "liberalism". When I think of the inhumanity of the XIX century, I feel quite a bit of sympathy for Marxism. I am far from an orthodox Marxist, but I suspect Marxism has a lot of truth.
Regards,
Posted Oct 18, 2020 22:28 UTC (Sun)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (3 responses)
> I hope I did not offend you. I picked "liberal" XIX century England because it was a good analogy to my argument, and because I happen to have recently read about the Irish potato famine, which was an atrocity of XIX century English "liberalism". When I think of the inhumanity of the XIX century, I feel quite a bit of sympathy for Marxism. I am far from an orthodox Marxist, but I suspect Marxism has a lot of truth.
Oh, you didn't offend me :-) And the comment about "I'm a Brit" was more a dig at American obsession (as we see it) with "free speech". As I said, free speech is one of "pick any two of three". And my values are not American values!
And as for "Marxism has a lot of truth", it's like Christianity. And this exemplifies a lot about how we over here see America - they have this rabid fear of Communism, which is seen as the devil incarnate, yet they are also intensely christian, which is communism! America is built on communist/marxist/barn-raising values, which actually does not have much to do with Communist/Stalinist values! :-) (America is also built on Capitalist/Robber Baron values, much like Stalinism, which is why a lot of the world fears America.)
As for the Irish Potato Famine, I thought it was down to British Conservative values, and there was quite an internal fight between the conservatives and the liberals. What little I've learnt about it leads me to believe that reality was much different from the propaganda from both sides - just like the Scottish Union / clearances / Bonny Prince Charlie and all that, which affected my family because I think they may well have been "cleared" ...
Cheers,
Posted Oct 20, 2020 17:31 UTC (Tue)
by JorgePMorais (guest, #134851)
[Link] (2 responses)
And they strongly fear even democratic socialism like that of Norway.
> yet they are also intensely christian,
I believe American version of Christianity is severely distorted by prosperity theology, obsession with the culture wars, fundamentalism and disregard for economic and social justice.
But this is off topic. I do not know LWN policy about off topic sub threads. Do you know if sub threads like this are unwelcome?
Posted Oct 20, 2020 17:42 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
Jon and the other editors will step in and call a halt if they feel it's going too far, but I'd rather not step on their toes :-)
Cheers,
Posted Oct 20, 2020 18:21 UTC (Tue)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
Posted Sep 8, 2020 4:57 UTC (Tue)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link]
This was rather my point, and indeed I'm now regretting mentioning the "under a cloud" bit at all. People have latched onto it, exactly as I knew they would. My actual point was, you don't normally give this sort of award to your own founder. I imagine the FSF might give him some sort of honorary "President Emeritus" title or similar, but an award per se would be a bit odd. Perhaps it would make more sense if this were a special one-off "lifetime achievement in free software" award, and not something given out annually, but even that would look a bit weird under the circumstances (you would expect an award like that if RMS had voluntarily retired from free software altogether, but as I understand it, he is still running GNU).
Oh well.
Posted Sep 8, 2020 13:07 UTC (Tue)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link]
Posted Sep 8, 2020 15:39 UTC (Tue)
by sumanah (guest, #59891)
[Link]
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
- Only individuals are eligible for nomination for this award (not projects).
- Individuals who describe their projects as "open" instead of "free" are eligible nonetheless, provided the software is in fact free.
- Previous winners are not eligible for nomination, but renomination of other previous nominees is encouraged.
- Current FSF staff and board members, as well as award committee members, are not eligible.
Isn't it time that due respect & recognition be shown to the hero who's the reason they are doing whatever they're doing to begin with?
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
Justice for rms
You might be interested in the simple, two-page static website I made in defense of rms and genuine freedom of speech: <https://jorgemorais.gitlab.io/justice-for-rms/>. In fact, I have drafted a revision. If you can help me with proofreading, please reach me. My contact is at <https://jorgemorais.gitlab.io/justice-for-rms/#help-wanted>.
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
(On second thought, I doubt it - he wouldn't read a publication that refers to Linux without the GNU/ prefix.)
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
I see nothing resembling what you're saying.
No mention of other awards or organisations, and RMS is absents of the full list of previous winners provided as reference.
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
state it explicitely.
If you are implying that RMS is a powerful person, please also state it explicitely.
Thanks.
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
a prominent member of the Debian project would deny both, though it's useful to have that be public.
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
Includes the worthy analysis of prominent feminist and civil rights activist Nadine Strossen. She has numerous awards, publications, and prominent appearances and served as the first female President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Three Supreme Court Justices participated in her farewell luncheon when she stepped down as President.
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
- the Common Dreams article[1] (written by Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America and former executive director of Amnesty International USA)
- The "#Cancel We The Web?" article, or at least the part that quotes prominent feminist and civil rights activist Nadine Strossen. She has numerous awards, publications, and prominent appearances and served as the first female President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Three Supreme Court Justices participated in her farewell luncheon when she stepped down as President.
- The "Freedom of speech and open mindedness" section of my own essay[3].
2: https://wetheweb.org/2020/08/13/cancel-we-the-web/ "#Cancel We The Web?" (wetheweb.org, ≃12 min read for the whole piece of ≃6 min for the Nadine Strossen part). If it is down, you can read the G$$gle cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:htt...
3: https://jorgemorais.gitlab.io/justice-for-rms/#open-minde... "Justice for Dr. Richard Matthew Stallman/Freedom of speech and open mindedness"
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
Wol
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
> Because everyone is forced to shun them, or because everyone CHOOSES to shun them?!
Jorge
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
Wol
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
Wol
This one would certainly appear to be getting closer to the line. How Christianity is understood in different countries is just not the sort of thing people normally come to LWN to discuss...
Off-topic threads
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
FSF: Free Software Award nominations sought
I think it's really cool that the FSF has an Award for Outstanding New Free Software Contributor:
Award for Outstanding New Free Software Contributor
The Award for Outstanding New Free Software Contributor is presented
annually to an individual newcomer to the community who has
demonstrated an outstanding dedication to software freedom. The award
recipient must have made their first significant free software-related
contributions in 2020, and show a pattern of ongoing activity. Their
contributions may have included things like: empowering the community
by organizing local meetups, software development, becoming involved
in the strategic or logistical planning of a project, working on
documentation, or helping to make improvements in the environment to
attract and keep contributors. Last year's award was accepted by
Clarissa Lima Borges, who upon beginning an internship through
Outreachy, immediately hit the ground running on improving
usability tests for GNOME desktop applications.
The Award for the Advancement of Free Software and the Award for Projects of Social Benefit are likely to go to people and projects that people who read LWN have already heard of. I'm glad that the Award for Outstanding New Free Software Contributor helps celebrate and encourage someone who's just joined us, and helps inspire other new contributors by highlighting the level of work that is possible by people who haven't been doing this for years or decades!