It's not about his opinions, it's about his ineffective and misguided leadership. Why is GNU still fighting the same battles from thirty years ago when new ones have emerged that they're not even paying attention to?
GNU is becoming the PETA of software, and it's not a good look.
As a GNU hacker (and co-maintainer of GNU Guix) statements like this make me sad. It is very unfortunate that Richard Stallman's personality is casting a shadow on the GNU project, which was started by him but is really a loose connection of projects that share ideas that were outlined in the GNU Manifesto.
I see GNU Guix in the tradition of other GNU software like Emacs or the Hurd that aim to give users more power and to remove arbitrary limitations. Emacs is probably the epitome of a hackable system that lets the user shape the software according to their own needs to an extend that is extreme and rarely found in any other system.
The Hurd aims to allow regular users to do things that in traditional Unices requires super-user privileges. It aims to remove arbitrary obstacles to free users from the unhealthy power dynamics of the user/admin division.
Guix gives users powerful tools to manage their software environments without having to beg admins, and to easily package software variants without having to depend on professional distributors. At the same time no user can harm another user on shared systems. Guix gives users the ability to take advantage of software freedom, by making it really easy to hack on software in a user-controlled reliable system.
When seen from this perspective, the GNU system that individual software projects are contributing to is a collection of tools that liberate users from helplessness due to unnecessary restrictions. This common goal defines the modern GNU project these days, and I think it is very unfortunate to overlook this because of Richard Stallman and his quirks, his sometimes dictatorial style, or his harmful attitudes towards important social aspects of free software.
I appreciate Richard's past work immensely, but I do not consider him representative of the GNU project that I work on, nor do I think his leadership style is benefiting the project.
Give GNU a chance based on the project's merits and its goals. Long live Free Software --- copyleft and non-copyleft alike!
The longer he's the figurehead of GNU, the longer he has any say in your projects, the longer he'll poison the well. This "joke" fiasco touched off a firestorm of commentary from people that are quite clear that he's been highly problematic for decades now.
You don't want someone toxic running GNU. Microsoft managed to shed their sweaty gorilla and look what's happened to them. They're not fully redeemed, but they stopped fighting and destroying.
Just as the early FSF cared not for tradition, for history, for the investment of time and energy on the part of others, they should not care today if they want to be a radical force for change. Keep that spirit. Tear down anything worth destroying because it gets in the way of what's right.
The important question, the only question, for an organization that promotes actual change is what can he do to improve things tomorrow.
Sadly we've lost Aaron Swartz, but that's the caliber of person you need today. Fearless, energetic, passionate, and fighting the right fights from the front lines. Aaron will be missed, but the FSF and GNU should be looking for, encouraging, motivating the next Aarons no matter what their background is.
I'm still wishing for a world where all electronics hardware and software is open source. Can't really visualize an industry like that be economically functional, but I hope someone does. My hope is with GNU.
That's what GNU is doing today with their stubborn fights about licensing when there's far bigger problems emerging.
How about a right to privacy? How about a right to timely patches for their Linux-based phones? How about a right to repair hardware running GPL software? How about a right to know if your device has security faults?
I can make software that mines the personal emails of dissidents, runs facial recognition on hacked webcams, and ruins lives, and that's all fine as far as GNU's concerned so long as I give out the source code to anyone who asks.
That seems...problematic.
* https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebo...
* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-testimony.html
* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.htm...
* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/judge-internet-usage.html
* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html
* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallmans-law.html
* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.htm...
So your position is that GNU should both get rid of Richard Stallman and start addressing this stuff. Clearly, you are not basing this upon Richard Stallman addressing these very things for quite a few years now via the GNU WWW site.
Destroying your phone, not using a web browser, and eating vegan or whatever isn't something everyone can or should do.
If he wants to be some obscure mountain-top philosopher, that's fine, but being the GNU head at the same time is problematic.
Also, GNU is not RMS, and RMS is not GNU.
[0]: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/a6ebb50040c5862c/
So good job.
As long as RMS is such a prominent figure the GNU/FSF organization there's no separation.
he wants to champion free software, not every just cause under the sun.
IoT devices shipping with insecure configurations is a "failure" of an infosec champion/thought-leader to step up and save us.
On the free software front, RMS contribution are mind blowing to me. I'd be proud if I can ever contribute a fraction of what he did.
The IoT thing was a perfect opportunity to step in, step up, and show some leadership. Billions of devices owned by tens or hundreds of millions of people, all running open-source software!
Instead we get this miserable hell because of his laser focus on licensing instead of responsible software.
Infosec, to their credit, were raising alarm bells from the beginning but nobody had to listen to them because they don't control anything.
GNU, however, does. If they'd extended GPL to include provisions for ensuring that the GPL software on it can be updated in a timely and secure manner, life would be a lot better for people.
And what do you expect the FSF to do? Out-lobby consumer electronics manufacturers to pass laws requiring some kind of security update guarantee? Even if they succeeded, could we call the result empowerment? Getting out from under the thumb of the manufacturer and actually _owning_ the things you own is the point, not the theoretical promise of recourse if the party which practically retains all of their power over you can be proven in court to have misbehaved, only after the abuse has taken place.
This is absolutely the same fight, and if anything the approach you're arguing for is more conciliatory, not more ‘relevant’.
There's going to be a billion variants on every little IoT device in the future and all the best intentions and enthusiasm on the part of the free software community will not be enough to provide patches to all of them.
This is something that's the responsibility of the vendor, and the GNU software license could make that a requirement for using the software.
It's not about laws, it's about licensing. If they don't like the license they're free to use someone else's software.
Having inexpensive operating system software you can dump on a cheap device without license fees is both a great thing, and also what got us into this IoT hot mess.
(Note, I came to this conclusion after reading about a bunch of his technical accomplishments, which I can see are awesome, even if the obvious megalomania evidently occasionally dampens their effects.
I think his work is fantastic, his politics are largely reasonable - but I think his self-obsession is often the driver behind a large amount of damaging and counterproductive behaviour.
Politics is the art of compromise - not convincing everybody you're a saint while alienating your natural allies.)
I’m not a fan of him personally, and many of his technical decisions have been questionable, but he’s achieved a lot, and the world is better for the FSF’s existence.
I wouldn't have any problem with the 'GNU/Linux' idea if it wasn't so obviously part of a greater pattern - when he talks about it, he talks about GNU being the primary contributor - but he typically uses the singular, even when the plural would refer to GNU, and the singular refers to himself.
I also think the world is better for the FSF, but I cant help but wonder, what would the world be like if the FSF was headed by somebody who felt it more natural to think in terms of 'we', as opposed to 'I'? Even somebody not nearly as technically accomplished, charismatic, and intelligent? I think ultimately, it's the ideas, of knowledge as the common wealth of humankind, rather than the curious personality of RMS, that gave the GNU project its power - and ultimately, it's the limitations of RMS that hold it back.
Not at all. Android depends on tons of GNU software.