DeVault: Reforming the free software message

Also true that no one man has done more to hurt Free Software than RMS.

The emperor has not had any clothes for several decades.

FOSS != Free Software.

The OSS part of FOSS was almost certainly around before RMS was born!

I used to describe RMS as a prophet - a lot of what he predicted has come true. Now he seems much more a Cassandra - his terrible predictions are self-fulfilling, and he is one of the main causes of it!

Cheers,
Wol

RMS is a board member, and FSF has published something to help avoid mistaken assumptions about what that means: https://www.fsf.org/about/board-of-directors-code-of-ethics
"Board members shall not speak on behalf of the FSF unless given explicit permission. Directors must not represent that their authority as board members extends any further than it actually extends. The board speaks as a whole, not as individuals."

And more relevant information:
https://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board/board

To answer this question, I draw your attention to a few specific problems with the status quo.

First, I don't think that anyone should suffer political suicide for expressing a few upsetting opinions. However, it's important to recognize the fact that the FSF is essentially a mouthpiece for RMS, or at the very least is unable to meaningfully break with him on any matters of policy or messaging. As a result it's difficult to distinguish the political positions of the FSF from those of RMS. To draw attention to one of the most egregious writings of RMS which was called out by his opponents, he has gone on record as expressing the view that minors may be able to consent to having sex with adults. I am quite uninterested in litigating the veracity of this claim on LWN (short answer: absolutely fucking not), but I draw attention to it because it's an incredibly charged issue which has nothing to do with free software and justifiably makes many people uncomfortable with RMS as a person. This is a view which, for example, would easily justify a parent preventing their child from attending an event he presents at. There are many less charged opinions that he has forwarded which raise similar concerns, none of which have anything to do with free software and are a harmful distraction when given a platform in the free software discourse. Again, RMS could express challenging views in private, but the degree to which the FSF is entangled with RMS makes it difficult to view it as an institution independent of these views.

Even without rendering a moral judgement on RMS, under these circumstances can this person reasonably be said to be a good leader for our movement? Does having him in a leadership position further the goals of the free software movement? Not at all. This creates an exclusionary environment and makes free software a political wildfire. No one benefits from having RMS's fringe ideas associated with free software, but because the FSF has institutionalized a cult of personality around him that association is inescapable.

Second, RMS is a creep. I understand that you view this characterization as insulting, but at this point it's a statement of fact and acknowledging that he is a creep is a necessary step towards addressing the problem. We have heard more than enough stories of sexual harassment to raise serious concern that demand action. The FSF treats RMS as "too big to fail", he is such an important creep that we cannot remove him. This is not okay. Moveover, he's just a bit of a jerk. His rhetoric, which defines the broader rhetoric of the FSF, is antagonizing to anyone who does not tow the line. His writings, those endorsed as the official message of the FSF, have created a political atmosphere which insults and derides so many people, from victims of commercial software's predatory tactics to people we should ostensibly view as allies in the open source movement, a movement which in the absence of these problems has been met with orders of magnitude more success in forwarding the practice of free software, if not the same principles and philosophy.

Third: what does RMS even do for the free software movement anymore? Can you name anything he's done in the past twenty years? I can only name a few, all times when he's risen from years of non-involvement in "his" communities to make things worse: crippling GCC's ability to compete with LLVM, derailing the emacs project's attempts to move on from bzr, or surprising everyone with major overhauls to glibc's documentation without seeking consensus. All of these communities responded by making moves to reduce or eliminate his leadership role in their respective projects.

The FSF has chosen to die on his hill, and to be clear, that choice means death. The free software movement is bigger than RMS, and bigger than the FSF, but if all roads lead to RMS then the open source movement, absent the principles and philosophy of free software, will continue to dominate our message and the free software movement is doomed to complete its descent into obscurity and irrelevance.

What's the fucking point of keeping this guy around? Any competent organization would have removed him long ago, and certainly would not have re-instated him weeks later. The FSF failed to address the RMS problem and has burned a tremendous amount of social capital in so doing. The FSF is the laughing stock of the entire software ecosystem. They are in no position to lead our movement until they undergo serious reforms.

However, as someone who has followed the FSF and its publications for a while, I must say the image that I get of FSF definitely does have elements of antagonism and even vitriol against the open source movement. I understand from what you say that this might not reflect the FSF's intentions or even its overall views (I certainly thought it did!), but perception matters.

Communication is not a one-way street. It is not enough for an organization to express its views and expect them to be understood in the intended spirit. The listener's interpretation plays an equally important role. Thus, if the FSF's message is being perceived as hostile, then I believe this points to a failure in the FSF's communication strategy, not necessarily a failing on the part of the reader.

The world of human communication is complex and nuanced. It's not just about what is said, but also what is left unsaid, how often certain points are reiterated, and the tone in which messages are delivered. All of these factors shape how a message is received. If the FSF's publications are perceived as antagonistic to open source, it's a sign that the messaging is failing to bridge the gap between the FSF's intentions and the public's understanding.

While there's no doubt that RMS has played a monumental role in starting the free software movement and has been instrumental in its growth, it's essential to recognize that the FSF's future may require adaptability and a reevaluation of its communication strategy if in fact it believes that it is being perceived wrong

I believe it would be beneficial for the FSF to introspect on how its message is being received and what can be done to ensure it aligns with its goals and intentions. It is crucial to remember that the free software movement is bigger than any one person or organization; it's a collective effort by a global community. Thus, the FSF's communication should reflect this collective spirit and aim to build bridges rather than walls.

Additionally, I'd like to touch upon the point about RMS speaking on certain issues important to him at every possible opportunity. While it's admirable that he is staunchly committed to his beliefs, this can also be a part of the problem. His insistence on discussing certain topics without regard for the social context or potential for misunderstanding can further muddy the waters in terms of the FSF's messaging. As the figurehead of the FSF, his words and actions have a significant impact on how the organization is perceived. Thus, it's not a problem the FSF can simply disown if it leads to the message being misunderstood or misrepresented.

Once again, I appreciate your open-minded approach to this discussion. I hope my observations can contribute to a constructive dialogue on how we can move the free software movement forward in a respectful manner.

Responding on an _individual_ basis may be more trouble than it's worth, but when "hit job posts" get made several times a year saying more or less the same thing, it stands to reason that the FSF should put up some sort of rebuttal instead of pretending they don't exist.

> because the authors are generally unwilling to be convinced of anything

... this cuts both ways; the FSF has demonstrated time and time again they're utterly unwilling to be convinced of anything.

A good example of this is the FSF's "Respect Your Freedom" program, which has been actively harmful to hardware liberation efforts.

Who's doubling down again?

Yep. It's been very successful, and I'm very grateful.

> (Way back in the day, I came across an interview with Donald Becker, the author of many, many Linux networking drivers. When asked why he gave away all that code for free, he responded something to the effect of "I didn't give my work for free; in return I got the rest of the operating system, and considered that good payment")

Pay forward ... again, couldn't agree more ...

> It's great until your supplier jacks up the price. Or abandons the product. Then you're screwed.

And if there is no FLOSS equivalent? You're screwed before you start. If the economics don't support a FLOSS equivalent? Don't forget, FLOSS survives very well in the niche where it is a BYproduct of a different business. It struggles where it is the product itself.

> Um, no. There is literally nothing stopping you from paying someone else to do work for you. What you do with their work is up to you.

There is literally EVERYTHING stopping you, if you don't have the means of payment ...

> So is the natural order greed and avarice, or cooperation for mutual benefit? Nature (and history) is replete with examples of both.

Depends how close the two of you are. Co-operate with those close to you, compete (steal from) with those further away. This whole debate is about the difference between the Open Source crowd, who consider Free Software as close to them and to be co-operated with, and the Free Software crowd who see Open Source as a competitor to be assimilated and destroyed.

And if, as I said above, the Free Software crowd could see that "pure" Open Source itself is no different from Free Software, we might get somewhere.

Cheers,
Wol

If you'd read the thread, rather than replying to a single post, the answer is clear. I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.

I can sponsor features - indeed I have. But if I tried to pay someone to fix the problems in Libreoffice Writer (as I see them), taking all my future earnings for the rest of my life probably wouldn't - realistically - be enough.

Telling me I can do something - as in it is physically or practically possible - does not mean that *I* can do it. How does a blind man appreciate a sunset? How does a deaf man appreciate Beethoven's 9th? How does a penniless person pay for a slap-up meal?

Call me a pragmatist, but as someone who has far too much contact with the disabled and elderly I'm sick and tired of people who refuse to see that other people have their limitations ... just because YOU can do it, doesn't mean that other people can.

Cheers,
Wol

> By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.

Yup. Definitely no hostility and disdain there.

A first step might be, you know, recognizing that and trying to bridge the gap with Open Source community. Which implies, for example, admission that Open Source people also just might have principles (although different ones).

> I intend to not respond to a bunch of unjustified criticisms of FSF in this comment section, it seems quite unproductive.

Yet you feel no problem having with FSF unjustifiably criticizing people who prefer Open Source model.