DeVault: Reforming the free software message

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.