The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement [LWN.net]

The Free Software Foundation has finally issued a statement on why the decision to return Richard Stallman to the organization's board of directors was taken.

We decided to bring RMS back because we missed his wisdom. His historical, legal and technical acumen on free software is unrivaled. He has a deep sensitivity to the ways that technologies can contribute to both the enhancement and the diminution of basic human rights. His global network of connections is invaluable. He remains the most articulate philosopher and an unquestionably dedicated advocate of freedom in computing.
RMS acknowledges that he has made mistakes. He has sincere regrets, especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the reputation and mission of FSF. While his personal style remains troubling for some, a majority of the board feel his behavior has moderated and believe that his thinking strengthens the work of the FSF in pursuit of its mission.

There is also a separate statement from Stallman.

to post comments

Think (at least) twice before commenting.

Posted Apr 12, 2021 15:51 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (4 responses)

We have, frankly, come to dread posting articles on this topic. While almost all LWN readers have respected our requests to keep the comment stream under control, there are always a few who do not. But to fail to note the FSF's explanation after all the coverage of this topic would be clearly unfair, so here it is.

Before you comment on this article, please think hard about whether what you have to say is truly new and will truly advance the conversation. As you know, blocking a discussion is a step we are extremely reluctant to take; we are often faulted for being too reluctant in that regard. But we will take that step quickly this time if we end up covering the same ground yet again or spiralling out of control.

Thank you.

Think (at least) twice before commenting.

Posted Apr 12, 2021 16:33 UTC (Mon) by post-factum (subscriber, #53836) [Link]

I just wanted to thank you for letting the readers to be informed about the topic without editorial bias.

Think (at least) twice before commenting.

Posted Apr 12, 2021 18:30 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] (1 responses)

Thanks for posting it. I'd likely have missed it otherwise.

Think (at least) twice before commenting.

Posted Apr 14, 2021 13:23 UTC (Wed) by alison (subscriber, #63752) [Link]

> Thanks for posting it. I'd likely have missed it otherwise.

I agree: the statement *is* Linux news although it is also flamebait. As with the question of social media accounts of public figures with notably bad behavior, there is no right answer. The most desirable solution would be to ban rude and repetitive commenters themselves, but clearly that would be a controversial and high-maintenance solution. Perhaps it would make sense to post some notices without any ability to comment? But that would also undoubtedly engender more work.

Think (at least) twice before commenting.

Posted Apr 14, 2021 13:24 UTC (Wed) by martin.langhoff (subscriber, #61417) [Link]

We hold leaders to a higher standard, and for good reasons. Humans' mimicry is to a large degree instinctual, so we emulate our leaders both consciously and sub-consciously.

A leader is usually picked because they did something great in one facet of their thinking and/or action; but they're as human as anyone else. They'll have their toxic traits and flaws. We ask, even put pressure on them, to highlight their greatness and cure or just kinda hide their flaws. Because their followers will mimic what they put on display.

Even though we intellectualize our thinking about our leaders, _if you watch what we actually do_ we're really bad at filtering what we mimic.

This is true across all our social structures. Politics, the FSF, etc.

Because of this we have an expectation that leaders will hopefully change for the better, but more often that they underplay or hide their flaws. We ask them to lie. This plays out with every generation of leadership across the spectrum of human activity.

It is, in a very sense, a socially positive lie.

When we forget to demand this from leaders, and we let them lead with their flaws in full display, then one boorish leader becomes a whole crowd, with predictable results.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 16:33 UTC (Mon) by HenrikH (subscriber, #31152) [Link] (1 responses)

I think the FSF brings forward valid points on why RMS has a place within FSF. But perhaps a less problematic solution would be to have him as "expert consultant" and not on the actual board.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 19:01 UTC (Mon) by jzb (editor, #7867) [Link]

Yeah. I found that explanation unsatisfying. RMS couldn't be consulted unless he was on the board? Or maybe they could have gone about this by starting with RMS statement and their own desire to have him on the board and let the community give feedback on it. Oh well. I feel like the FSF has made it clear where their priorities are and everybody else can decide accordingly.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 17:54 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] (13 responses)

So RMS is digging into his position that Minsky was "unfairly accused". Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't—he's dead and can't testify, but Giuffre's testimony is clear.

In fact, RMS is more entrenched in this new statement than in the original mails that caused the uproar. Then, he suggested that maybe Giuffre presented herself as willing to Minsky: she did not tell Minsky that she was being coerced or was underage. RMS came across as minimising it, but did not literally deny Giuffre's claim.

Now he is categorically saying the accusation against Minsky is false (and explaining why that makes him angry).

He should then testify in the Epstein case on why he believes Giuffre's testimony is false. It is a serious accusation.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 18:00 UTC (Mon) by jonbayer (guest, #36490) [Link] (8 responses)

How do you get this? He fired an off-the-cuff defense of someone he knew who he felt was being unfairly accused. I don't see any further defenses of Minsky in this release .

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 18:04 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] (5 responses)

I'm talking about RMS's statement (linked in the article).

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 18:14 UTC (Mon) by rweikusat2 (subscriber, #117920) [Link]

No, you don't. You're writing about something you've made up entirely on your own which happens to be unspecific enough that someone could believe you meant to summarize Stallman's statement while you're really (and quite obviously) hinting at something very much different and much more general.

After 16 months of March 2020, all of the usual ways to play fast and loose with the truth in public statements have been overused to such a degree that none of them retains much usefulness except with the very gullible.

NB: I do not plan to continue this conversation under any circumstances.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 19:02 UTC (Mon) by jonbayer (guest, #36490) [Link] (1 responses)

I see, can you please quote the part of his statement that defends Minsky?

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 19:20 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

"I knew Minsky only distantly, but seeing him unjustly accused made me spring to his defense."

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 19:07 UTC (Mon) by Rudd-O (guest, #61155) [Link] (1 responses)

The statement says no such thing. There is no other way to say this: you are lying (and perhaps hoping that your readers won't read the statement for themselves).

Everybody stop

Posted Apr 12, 2021 19:09 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Enough, this is just the sort of thing we asked you all not to do. Stop here, please.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 21:15 UTC (Mon) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link] (1 responses)

In 2016 he rushed to declare that UN peacekeepers being found to have been raping people was something that "probably didn't happen", along with another spirited defence of raping minors as "consensual underage sex", on his blog.

This is a pattern of denying that rape happens, competely independent of defending an old friend.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 21:18 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

We really don't need to litigate all of this yet again here. What good can possibly come of it? Please stop.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 18:10 UTC (Mon) by JMB (guest, #74439) [Link]

Well, from my point of view it looks that whatever anyone says can be put to be meant in a bad way.
The interesting part is that it is not any action - but words - and not words which may provoke illegal actions by others.
This should be clearly noted as something like a witch hunt.
So why are these arguments given again and again ...
One should be stopped for an action - not for an opinion.
We would not have a single politician if they were judged that way.
And most interestingly - RMS did a lot on his own before others joined.
That is an historic fact. And no one speaks up even against monopoly companies like he always did.
As a former scientist I would wished the FSF thought about these things before pressing RMS out.
And the big question is - is he allowed to breathe before there is a cry for his removal again -
on the same ground that he did not act in bad faith ... as otherwise there should be legal action.
This got really a strange world.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 18:16 UTC (Mon) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]

What he is saying is based on his own opinions of what words should mean. I mean, he is certainly consistent with them, but I agree that he is just digging a deeper hole for himself.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 19:55 UTC (Mon) by bpearlmutter (subscriber, #14693) [Link]

If you read Giuffre's actual testimony, she says she was instructed by Epstein to have sex with Marvin Minsky. She does *not* say that she actually did have sex with him.

This is consistent with reports by others at the event (Pinsker in particular, I believe) that a young woman there propositioned Minsky, but Minsky declined.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 21:09 UTC (Mon) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]

> but Giuffre's testimony is clear.

To wit, from the actual deposition, not The Verge's interpretation:

Q Where did -- where were you and where was Ms. Maxwell when she directed you to go have sex with Marvin Minsky?
A I don't know.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 18:05 UTC (Mon) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

It would have been nice if the FSF had been more transparent about the deliberations preceding RMS's reinstatement. And it would be nice had they given concrete examples for why they "feel his behavior has moderated".

As it is, it seems shrouded in secrecy and raises more questions than it answers.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 18:42 UTC (Mon) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (2 responses)

He has sincere regrets, especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the reputation and mission of FSF.

I understand what they're trying to say, but this is a kind of statement I have come to hate. It's an attempt to make a statement that superficially resembles an apology without actually admitting any wrongdoing. It places the blame on people who are angry at RMS without acknowledging his behavior might possibly have been connected to their anger. I'm afraid it will ultimately satisfy nobody. RMS's critics will see it as an evasion of their criticism, and his supporters will see it as a mistake even to engage this much.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 19:10 UTC (Mon) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]

I think what the FSF statement says is that RMS apologized to the FSF that the public perception of him has negatively impacted the FSF. In his own statement, RMS acknowledges that he has made people uncomfortable with his behavior and apologizes to those who were hurt by it.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 15, 2021 18:52 UTC (Thu) by ceplm (subscriber, #41334) [Link]

I think this is the pearl of absolutely perfect non-apology. “I regret …” gives the reader a piece of hope, which is immediately crushed by the passive aggressive “… how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the reputation and mission of FSF”. Just precious.

On the serious note, I think that FSF finally recognized that FSF is Stallman and Stallman is FSF and the one without the other won’t ever work. And if RMS tanks FSF (as I expect) then it is just too bad for FSF. Free software, GNU, Linux will continue without them, but pretending that these two can be separated was just an exercise in futility.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 19:06 UTC (Mon) by cagrazia (guest, #124754) [Link]

I don't enter in the discussion about Stallman's words (I have my opinion, which will not change, as you have yours), but there is an interesting point in the FSF statement which I consider worth asking:

> We take full responsibility for how badly we handled the news of his election to a board seat. We had planned a flow of information that was not executed in a timely manner or delivered in the proper sequence.

So, the thing is that they decided on inviting back RMS on board, then they had a plan for communicating it to the world, and then RMS announce it (bypassing the FSF plan) at FSF LibrePlanet. Isn't that a bit weird?

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 19:06 UTC (Mon) by Rudd-O (guest, #61155) [Link] (16 responses)

Both the FSF's statement and RMS' statement are sensible, direct, avoid mincing words or concepts, and tell a story not often told or heard.

I'm pretty happy with them. I am sure there will be many angry people to whom these statements will be "not enough" or (worse, and Kafkaesquely) taken to be "evidence" of the very things they falsely accuse Richard of. I don't care — to me, these are great resolutions to a conflict that shouldn't have even existed in the first place.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 19:48 UTC (Mon) by amacater (subscriber, #790) [Link] (15 responses)

I can't see how this outcome (the combined effect of these two statements) can be anything but divisive for the FSF and the wider community [Paraphrasing a very useful similar comment on the Debian vote elsewhere here].

These will not stop dissension, division or further discussion: I'm not sure whether they will convince the organisations that
have already cut relations with the FSF over this issue to mend fences. Together with the resignations from the FSF, we are
maybe ending up with the worst of all possible worlds here.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 19:59 UTC (Mon) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648) [Link] (14 responses)

I disagree. The people who are willing to exact mob justice on people they don't like need to see themselves losing so that they will not attempt to exact mob justice on people they don't like in the future. This result serves that purpose.

As far as dissension, these statements don't really leave anywhere for the critics to go. They demanded the FSF do something; both the FSF and RMS said no. If they want to follow through with their threats not to work with the FSF, fine, but they know now that doing so won't accomplish what they want.

I expect the organizations and people that cut ties will gradually and quietly reestablish ties as the angry people with the attention spans of mayflies find other interests, because they'll see doing that as in their own interests. Or did you think Red Hat donated to the FSF out of the goodness of its heart?

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 20:39 UTC (Mon) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (13 responses)

I expect the organizations and people that cut ties will gradually and quietly reestablish ties

I actually can't see that happening. It'd be interesting to revisit this in a couple of years' time to see who was right.

... did you think Red Hat donated to the FSF out of the goodness of its heart

To some extent, yes, and to some extent because it boosted Red Hat's brand. There's really no other reason for RH to contribute to the FSF other than to boost its brand (it doesn't get anything concrete out of it.) So as long as RH feels that FSF won't boost its brand, it won't donate.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 21:21 UTC (Mon) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648) [Link] (11 responses)

> To some extent, yes, and to some extent because it boosted Red Hat's brand. There's really no other reason for RH to contribute to the FSF other than to boost its brand (it doesn't get anything concrete out of it.) So as long as RH feels that FSF won't boost its brand, it won't donate.

Red Hat uses and contributes to glibc, gcc, and other GNU projects. Its donations help support the management and development of software Red Hat ships. That's the concrete benefit.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 21:29 UTC (Mon) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (10 responses)

Red Hat could easily use and contribute to glibc, gcc and other GNU projects without funding the FSF.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 21:55 UTC (Mon) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648) [Link] (3 responses)

Of course. However, they do benefit from the FSF having money. I was going to say "they benefit if the git servers are fast", but I think the git servers are actually run by sourceware.org, which appears to be Red Hat, so I don't know about that as an example. Still, there has to be some benefit from the people who run the projects you're contributing to having money.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 13, 2021 13:31 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (2 responses)

See, when I look at glibc, the FSF isn't much more than a brand right now. The people doing most of the work aren't paid by the FSF; most of the resources are not provided by the FSF either (Red Hat provides a lot of them via it's SourceWare brand), and basically the benefit of the FSF is the branding.

Now, having glibc under the FSF brand, not the Red Hat brand, makes a lot of sense when the FSF brand is strong and the big concern around Red Hat from its paying customers is that Red Hat might throw its weight around and make it hard for you if you stop being their customer. If FSF is becoming a tainted brand, then having the FSF be a strong brand as well is not advantageous.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 14, 2021 13:24 UTC (Wed) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] (1 responses)

> having glibc under the FSF brand [...] makes a lot of sense when the FSF brand is strong

Nope. It makes sense when the FSF brand is *vendor neutral*.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 14, 2021 14:58 UTC (Wed) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]

Vendor neutral isn't enough - if the FSF is sufficiently toxic that customers say "yeah, that doesn't count as alternative stewardship if you stop helping us", then neutrality isn't good enough. It needs to be both neutral, and a brand your customers are happy to deal with.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 13, 2021 13:30 UTC (Tue) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link] (1 responses)

The FSF owns the copyrights to the project.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 13, 2021 23:06 UTC (Tue) by luto (subscriber, #39314) [Link]

glibc could be forked. Speaking only for myself, *I* will not contribute to glibc for reasons that have nothing to do with FSF's board or with anything that has happened in the last decade. I won't contribute because I refuse to deal with their copyright policy.

One might reasonably debate whether the FSF's copyright policy is reasonable, and I'm not about to argue that the FSF should change its policy, but it is certainly not the case that the FSF's policy is an unmitigated benefit to the community.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 13, 2021 13:32 UTC (Tue) by milesrout (subscriber, #126894) [Link] (3 responses)

Do Red Hat have expert compiler developers, or expert bootloader developers, or expert C standard library developers, or experts in any other other diverse areas that GNU projects exist? Genuine question. I don't know, but I somewhat doubt it, at least in the quantity needed to reimplement or fork all the many GNU projects and maintain them themselves.

Perhaps Red Hat could hire some of the people that work on GNU projects. Perhaps they could hire people to work on forks of those projects, or to work on those projects as they are. But Red Hat is not Apple or Google and does not have their resources. They can't rebuild GNU/Linux from the ground up. They rely on the GNU coreutils, binutils, GCC, etc.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 13, 2021 14:22 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

Yes, Red Hat has all of those experts. And given that they're owned by IBM now, I'm pretty sure they could outgun the FSF in terms of technical resources without any problems.

Also, Red Hat doesn't need to build anything from the ground up. gcc, grub, etc. are all Free Software, and Red Hat is completely free to run with them whether or not it contributes anything to the FSF.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 13, 2021 14:43 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]

Red Hat employs quite a few of the people who work in GNU project areas - indeed, Red Hat also provide the hosting for glibc, and GCC, and binutils, and quite a few other "FSF" projects. Basically everything listed at https://sourceware.org/projects.html is hosted by Red Hat, and they employ a reasonable subset of the people who contribute - you will note that many of those are "FSF" projects, but that Red Hat provides the resources, not the FSF.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 13, 2021 15:57 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

> Perhaps Red Hat could hire some of the people that work on GNU projects.

Since they took over Cygnus well over two decades ago, Red Hat has employed a large proportion (at times an absolute majority) of GNU compiler and toolchain developers, and for a very long time (until about 2010) almost all the glibc developers (both the then-principal maintainer and the original author). If any one company could be said to have employed the people that built the low-level GNU/Linux stuff from the ground up, it is RH. (Though of course it's actually the *people* that did the work, and they mostly started before RH employed them: RH is notable for employing them to do it for a very long time, as they still do. Other companies do the same, including my employer, but RH have certainly been an extremely notable example.)

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 13, 2021 13:30 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

> I actually can't see that happening. It'd be interesting to revisit this in a couple of years' time to see who was right.

And exactly what do you expect to have changed in two years? If you think that decissions are being made on the basis of feelings, then someone should reconsider their position now, not in two years, after the damage has been done. If instead you think we are missing information, then would you care to point out what it maight be?

> There's really no other reason for RH to contribute to the FSF other than to boost its brand

Red Hat is more than a brand. It is an organization of people, and they have goals, some of which are shared with the FSF.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 20:30 UTC (Mon) by chris_se (subscriber, #99706) [Link] (6 responses)

This statement has me really worried about the future of the FSF. For the sake of argument, let's assume that controversy were to die down completely after now and everybody is now OK with the FSF again. (That obviously won't be the case, but let's pretend for a second.) To me this reads like the FSF currently sees itself as an organization designed around the person of RMS, and is unable to transcend him. But at some point RMS will not be around anymore. And while that's probably not going to be soon (and I wish him, as I do everyone, a long and healthy life), at some point his health will not permit him to be involved anymore. And then the question is what will happen to the FSF then? I've seen countless examples of organizations outside of the free software movement that crumbled after their founders were not present anymore, even though they nominally had a purpose beyond just being an extension of their founder.

For this reason a lot of other people have taken steps to make sure their organizations/projects will survive their departure. For a more recent example, take Python, where a couple of years ago Guido van Rossum has stepped down from his role as BDFL and handed over governance (mostly gradually), and has made strides to ensure that Python will flourish even without him. Or take Ian Murdock, who tragically passed away 5 years ago, but took steps decades ago to ensure that Debian will outlive him.

So maybe I'm reading too much into this statement, but to me this reads as if the FSF sees itself as an extension of RMS, and not an organization unto its own purpose. Regardless of how highly you think of someone, I don't think it's ever a good idea for someone to be completely irreplaceable in the structure of an organization. And that's why I'm really worried for the future of the FSF, even if we were to discount the controversy itself.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 21:19 UTC (Mon) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]

> To me this reads like the FSF currently sees itself as an organization designed around the person of RMS, and is unable to transcend him.

In 2018 rms posted to the GNU emacs list, during a debate around the direction for improvements in Emacs, that the role of the GNU Emacs project is to build software that rms finds interesting, so that certainly seems to be rms' view.

> but to me this reads as if the FSF sees itself as an extension of RMS

The FSF has announced that they are a cult.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 22:06 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] (4 responses)

Yes, I think that this is one of the fundamental problems. RMS does not trust anyone besides himself to stay true to the principles of free software as he sees them, and many of his followers seem to feel the same way (you'll regularly see them saying that RMS is the free software movement). He's 68 years old. He won't be around forever.

Some of his writing and advocacy is brilliant and has inspired people. But his behavior has also tended to push people away, particularly women (especially among those who've had to deal with him in person at MIT). His inflexibility sometimes has served him, but his resistance to taking feedback or to bend in any way on anything at all has caused damage.

The FSF would be better off honoring RMS as the founder, giving him some kind of emeritus role, and developing a new generation of leaders. In principle it wouldn't be so bad if he were one board member, but it appears to be that he's going to be the dominant board member indefinitely, and that's going to cause all kinds of problems with other contributors to free software refusing to deal with the FSF, diminishing its influence.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 13, 2021 13:33 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (3 responses)

It also means that, sadly, in the next 30 years, we're likely to see the FSF die and RMS's vision of Free Software with it.

If the FSF could find an RMS replacement (with RMS himself involved in the searching and filtering process) who was 30 years younger than RMS, then the movement he's founded would have a strong chance of continuing, and the FSF would have a long term future. As it is, the FSF may well not outlive RMS.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 13, 2021 23:05 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (2 responses)

It also means that, sadly, in the next 30 years, we're likely to see the FSF die and RMS's vision of Free Software with it.

I don't think the situation is so dire. RMS's contributions have obviously been critical, but the Free Software movement has grown to be much bigger than him. That's not just in terms of all the developers working outside the organizations he founded; there's also a large group of people who support Free Software philosophically. The beliefs he expressed have even spread beyond software and into culture more broadly, resulting in fantastic projects like Wikipedia.

And, in case this isn't clear, I think that reflects very much to RMS's credit. It's sad to see him be marginalized, but it reflects the vitality of the movement that it can continue even as its founder becomes less and less important. It's certainly better than being so dependent on a single leader that the whole thing collapses when he's no longer around.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 14, 2021 13:24 UTC (Wed) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (1 responses)

I think Free Software will continue, but not in the vein of RMS's vision. Specifically, I see a large move to "do as you wish" free (2-clause BSD, Apache, MIT, CC-BY) rather than copyleft free (GPL, GFDL, CC-BY-SA), which is not what RMS was after since it enables a future closed-source hegemon to co-opt free software.

Separately, I see the lack of GPL enforcement gradually reducing copyleft from a tool for ensuring that free software stays free to a slightly weirdly worded "do as you wish" licence.

This doesn't mean that free software is dead completely as an idea; merely that RMS's specific vision is dying. And that makes me sad, because I think that RMS's vision for free software via copyleft is a powerful vision backed by a lot of careful thought about what could make free software the dominant state, rather than a developer-friendly adjunct to closed source.

And I am sad at losing this, because RMS does have a demonstrated talent for not just seeing the worst case if we walk down a path, but also picking a solution that avoids the worst case. We'll still have something that counts as Free Software, but the vision of a world where non-free is just too expensive to do as compared to joining the free ecosystem is dying.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 15, 2021 13:54 UTC (Thu) by anton (subscriber, #25547) [Link]

An organisation like the FSF that holds positions that is inconvenient for well-funded interests is under constant threat of being subverted to change to more convenient (for those interests) position, using popularity as argument.

I hope that the current development means that the FSF is less prone to this danger, not just while RMS remains active, but hopefully also later. The FSF board seems to have grown a spine and hopefully they will be less prone to being subverted.

Of course, the result of that might be that the interests try to make the FSF mostly irrelevant by badmouthing it, but even if that succeeds, that's better than a subverted FSF.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 20:37 UTC (Mon) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link] (1 responses)

I appreciate the coverage. Having stated in prior comments my full support of Stallman and my interpretation of the economic basis of the witch-hunt against him and the attempt to coopt the FSF, which is reflected in the polling of grass roots and third-world contributors to the free software vision as contrasted to the wealthy and highly visible leading corporate voices of "open source," I hardly need to repeat those in depth. I welcome his return.

Let it also be said that most of those who fund LWN individually and all (so far as is obviously apparent) of the corporations which have underwritten its ability to cover things are in the anti-Stallman camp, a factor deeply related to the first point, which does not make life any easier for the editors. That's especially given the beyond strident attitude of the corporations, some of whom have attached real anathema conditions on their willingness to disburse funds to anything even visited by Stallman, whom they now declare has the Medusa touch.

Stay strong, Richard and FSF board. This is serving as a very useful sorting out of where people stand -- something the rush to anonymity from organizations like Debian is showing how fearful people are of having others actually knowing where they stand!

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 12, 2021 22:20 UTC (Mon) by seneca6 (guest, #63916) [Link]

I'm not sure one can actually say where "most of those who fund LWN individually" stand. It's deeply ironic that with traditional mass media declining and individual voices appearing everywhere on Internet - forums, comments, Twitter, "social" media - it seems that discussions, even on global scales, have not become more diverse, more varied, more human, more enriched, but rather more black-and-white, with more and more anger and bitterness on both sides.

In the many messages here and elsewhere, I hardly ever see people who refuse to be put in the one or in the other camp. How many are we? It's not that I'm indifferent to the subject, but rather I find valid points on both sides, and I recognise known voices who I thought of as trustworthy and intelligent in both camps.

Undoubtedly rms has earned enormous merits in the past. Also undoubtedly, had he retired to a purely philosophical role, kept on writing visionary essays instead of commenting on not only controversial but purely toxic subjects completely outside of his level of expertise, subjects where one cannot win, but only lose - it would have been better for everybody, including him, and many more people would still
keep him in esteem.

What does that mean for his role today? Must he be removed from positions of... well how much power do they actually hold? I don't think he must be removed, I wouldn't mind if he hadn't been reinstated. But I do think one must keep a minimum of dignity in the public discussion, and of proportionality. Not every wrongdoer, not even if he is not publically repenting, is the incarnation of evil and deserves to be treated as such. Not everyone shouting at a supposed wrongdoer is the incarnation of divine truth.

What leaves a bitter taste is the realisation that less you say publically, less you can be attacked for later. The disputed quote of cardinal Richelieu, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him" has never been more accurate. The public archives of rms' writing, and his extreme outspokenness, made it very easy to find six lines. But I worry for my children who grow up into this kind of society where blandness and blankness protect you. We all write our six lines every day.

Moderation turned on

Posted Apr 12, 2021 21:40 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (1 responses)

All comments on this article will now be moderated. The bar to pass moderation will be high, it's really time to think about something else. Did you all see that we have an exciting article on spinlocks?

Moderation turned on

Posted Apr 13, 2021 13:46 UTC (Tue) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link]

THIS is why I love LWN :)

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 13, 2021 13:28 UTC (Tue) by bpearlmutter (subscriber, #14693) [Link] (1 responses)

I found this [https://stallmansupport.org/] recently-published well-organized collection of materials very interesting. It includes a nice essay by noted activist Nadine Strossen, who served as President of the ACLU for about fifteen years.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 13, 2021 20:22 UTC (Tue) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link]

I found that to be... not so interesting. The first few paragraphs are not actually descriptive of the situation leading up to these events. Then, it says "Free software and free culture advocates around the world were outraged at the injustice", which is misleading at best.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 13, 2021 13:31 UTC (Tue) by itvirta (guest, #49997) [Link]

> He has sincere regrets, especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted [the FSF].

Somehow that reads a bit like saying they're sorry for how others reacted, instead of being sorry for their own actions (which then eventually caused those reactions). Is it just me?

To RMS's credit, that's from the FSF statement, so might not be the man's own words.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 14, 2021 21:34 UTC (Wed) by SteveZ (guest, #42616) [Link] (1 responses)

Probably more surprising is how many people care about this and still believe that the FSF is at all relevant anymore. We live in a world where every major online service uses Free GNU Software and to power their platform, and routinely uses it to smother speech and online liberty. The Defective by Design campaign was interesting at first, but has it been at all effective? Nope.

The FSF on Stallman's reinstatement

Posted Apr 16, 2021 13:14 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link]

One would think that would make the subject still more important and relevant...