Stallman Still Heading the GNU Project
lists.gnu.org
lists.gnu.org
It is never appropriate for these sorts of controversies to play out over 1 week. If there are years of evidence of problems, there should be a few weeks of tying them all together before people resign. The knee-jerk reaction here over a mailing list comment is genuinely concerning.
And people keep quoting him while rearranging the words. We literally have a transcript here, people should be copying from it directly. No quoting of single words in a new sentence, that is just slack. :/
In other words, what makes you think this process played out over 1 week, rather than this being the most recent of a long succession of events?
I am personally saddened by RMS’ departure, and also saddened that this “final straw” seems likely to be caused by Richard attempting to defend the memory of a long-time, now deceased friend. That said, I also know people who interact with him far more often than I, and they almost unanimously say it was past time. It makes me sad, but it doesn’t make me think it was hasty.
There hasn't been enough time to work out what the actual community thinks about the current drama because it takes a month or two for word to percolate around a community; stable opinions over large groups don't form in a week. Even if it is a straw that broke the camels back there needs to be a few weeks of settling to work out if there is straw and where it landed.
People like to think they can make snap decisions about what is good and what is bad. It just happens that that instinct is wrong and what fuels mob violence and other destructive actions; there are strong links between good decisions, long timeframes and moderate attitudes. This isn't so urgent that it couldn't wait a month to let everyone breath and take stock. Then Stallman can resign if enough people still think it is appropriate.
This recent event seems to have been what finally pushed this to the mainstream, but I can assure you people have been complaining to get rid of him for over a decade.
We know very well how they form: years of false propaganda.
People still believes he's scared of plants.
• What Stallman did is wrong, it was the wrong place, the wrong time and regardless of him feeling that way he speaks from a place of authority (more details at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20992124)
• This one incident should not be sufficient for firing a "visiting scientist" and the head of an organization he himself founded.
• In the case of a repeat problematic behaviour it should be addressed as such. Both MIT and the FSF should have expressed their concerns years ago, followed by discussions and explanations of what constitute an acceptable behaviour and clear steps, ending in a dismissal, that would have been taken if his behaviour were not corrected.
Not addressing a problematic behaviour for years or decades is wrong. A quick firing for one incident, because of past issues that have never been addresses, is wrong. Putting pressure on someone to resign rather than dismiss them is a cop out for either lack of courage or lack of arguments, or both and is wrong. Caving under mob/fashion pressure is another cop out and is wrong.
The only thing that's past time is that more people start to realize the real bullies and harassers are the ones who post medium posts saying "Remove $person"... in which they misrepresent or outright lie, which others in the press then launder, and then act like this is the height of speaking truth to power. The same way that Coraline Ada has hundreds of tweets of yelling, berating and denigrating people, even though "she's the woman bringing civility to open source" (wired) and wants to enforce a code of conduct.
It's all a joke, except it has actually weakened the community, and given power and influence to people who mainly seem to care about themselves, no matter which bodies they have to step over.
Diversity is a farce and geeks are useful idiots who believed it was ever about anything but narcissism. What is happening now is justification after the fact. If the accusers were expected to live up to the same standards of conduct they demand from others, these people wouldn't be taken seriously.
Why it always resolve to a comply or die situation?
How many times people told you what to do, you didn't and in the end you were right?
> by Richard attempting to defend the memory of a long-time, now deceased friend
He wasn't even defending him, he was just saying "don't use a word that does not represent what really happened according to the sources".
I haven’t read of any evidence, just what sounds like rumor starting and spreading
https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r...
Including gems such as
"I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)”
And
“I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.”
Plus
“There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.”
He has all of the sudden backtracked on his decades long-held opinion that sex between adults and children is ok less than two weeks ago:
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
> “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.”
This is quoted out of content, here is the full quote: "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. [with a link to https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-...]
Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue."
He did not take the "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children" statement out of his butt, it was the conclusion that he formed after reading this article.
But even then, I do not see how his opinions regarding paedophilia are relevant to the topic at hand.
Also, I can't speak for everyone, but I don't particulalry disagree with or think any of the things you list in your comment are fireable.
Isn't that what he said in the first place?
I contend that someone who thinks that an adult should not be allowed to enter into contracts regarding software / be punished for doing so "If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs." yet thinks that a 10/11 year old should be allowed to pick their sex partners is something that should be openly discussed.
Just because they build up doesn't mean they're not legitimate grievances, and I don't see rms changing one bit.
Responses always seem out of proportion because media coverage creates attention and makes people reconsider longstanding issues. That might seem like a manufactured mob, but it isn't, it's just focusing all of the discontent that piled up over the years.
We need better feedback loops, sure. But we also need people that listen, and RMS would fail there already.
The one incident that got attention now stems from rms having absolutely no filter and no sense of what's appropriate to say at what time and additionally seemingly prioritising his dead friends honor over believing victims even if you want to argue him being just about technically correct by using specific wording (there is no fucking way you are oblivious to people being coerced into sex this visiting Epsteins Island, just none).
This is not a one off thing. When RMS does his church of emacs skit and keeps pointing at a young woman in the audience whenever he says the word virgin, when RMS asks someone their name, if they work at MIT and then if they'd like to date right away, when people literally cover their offices in plants because Stallman doesn't like them... this guy should have been told to be better or get the fuck out years ago, but instead because he's adored by nerds all over people put up with his childish insistence on doing things exactly his way, using his personal redefinition of words (fuck rms for shitting on singular they) and leaving his behavior unchallenged because you know he'll throw a huge tantrum if you don't.
That seems a particular American hangup.
If people would visit the mansion of a skin-magazine tycoon on invitation, and one of the many women around there would approach them, very few would assume this was a genuine romantic interest, but there would be little reason to doubt if they were being set up for blackmail instead of straight-up prostitution.
Whether you are revolted by prostitution, or whether you would find it inappropriate for an older man to sleep with a significantly younger woman doesn't matter.
> (fuck rms for shitting on singular they) [..] you know he'll throw a huge tantrum if you don't.
Terrible thing that, people throwing tantrums when others don't see things their way.
2. I see no equivalence here. RMS will go out of his way to misgender people. He might not think that's a big deal, but that's no excuse. Watch any interview with the guy, even if he's talking to someone who does not subscribe to calling it "GNU/Linux" he will insist, every time, for it to be corrected. That's not just being insistent, that's actually - dare i say it - orwellian.
He also likes to draw the JBP "oh god no i have been misinterpreted" line. Like, when I say "Hacker news users are techbros." and someone asks me "why do you think all hacker news users are techbros", I can turn around and say I never said ALL I meant a very specific subset why are you misinterpreting my words you horrible horrible person aren't you supposed to be better this horrible tribalism. He does it in his per article twice (using the phrase "without inquiring if that's what I believe")
Responses are out of proportion because the media hugely distorts and misleads on every single topic in service of the goal of getting more shares. They'll always try and give a view that is as interesting/outrageous/satisfying as possible, using phrasing and selective ommissions.
Then people hear those stories and relay the insinuations rather than the actual reported facts (news media is generally very good at conveying X while only literally stating Y, Vice was unusually crude and shoddy this time).
The post I am replying to is an excellent example of the end result of this game of telephone.
> believing victims
He didn't disbelieved them in the quote.
> there is no fucking way you are oblivious to people being coerced into sex this visiting Epsteins Island, just none
On what basis are you saying this?
> When RMS does his church of emacs skit and keeps pointing at a young woman in the audience whenever he says the word virgin
This is the kind of thing where it's very easy for stories and memories to get distorted.
> when people literally cover their offices in plants because Stallman doesn't like them
Yet another one of the hugely exaggerated rumours...
Total speculation, but it makes me wonder if stallman is the geek's version of Steinbeck's "temporarily embarrassed millionaire"; that people want to see themselves not as members of a society, but just undiscovered genius misanthropes whose greatness hasn't yet been recognized.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Because getting with the times and adapting to a changing world require proprietary software and the dilution of privacy?
> genius misanthropes
Yes, rms the misanthrope...
Maybe stick to "kewl stealth mode startups", or at least try to make it less obvious you're just looking for excuses to dislike the man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That doesn't sound like what happened at all.
More like he dared to challenge a witchhunt against someone with a tenuous connection to Epstein, and the witchhunt turned on him.
If he wasn't fired/forced to resign because of his comments about Minsky, why did it happen just after those comments?
Notice that, fortunately, he seems to be in good spirits and has not lost his sense of humor. Look at the top line on his website (stallman.org). He says "I may not be a good leader, but at least I'm a great speaker[1]. "
With the link pointing to a video of a comically bad speech of him (which is funny, because he is almost always a very good speaker indeed).
That part of the HTML doesn't seem to be written with auto-fill-mode either.
Full disclosure, I'm the developer of an android player for peertube. https://github.com/sschueller/peertube-android
if that is the case, whomever managed to hack the "supreme hacker" deserves some sort of prize, doesn't it?
He's being treated the way he is because his actions and comments are insensitive at best and downright vulgar at worst, have been so for a long time, and people have finally had enough.
If you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
Do you really think that insensitivity and vulgarity is worse than mob justice?
Edit to add: Some people have said that Stallman is nuroatypical. If that is the case then it could be very well that his actions and comments are from a trait beyond his control.
The fact is, the reporting around the event that actually did get him fired was beyond awful and disingenuous. By throwing up your hands and saying "yeah maybe those articles were a crock of lies, but that's fine because he actually did do some shitty stuff before too" you're contributing to an environment in which it's that much harder to distinguish honest reporting from fabricated character assassination.
I think this [0] comment from Reddit does a good job refuting the "straw that broke the camel's back" argument:
"""
Amazing how much damage dishonest media coverage can do, even though it's both trivial to prove their misquotes false and we now have an witness further supporting Stallman's original argument. Summary of events:
In a recently unsealed deposition a woman testified that, at the age of 17, Epstein told her to have sex with Marvin Minsky. Minsky was a co-founder of the MIT Media Lab and pioneer in A.I. who died in 2016. Stallman argued on a mailing list (in response to a statement from a protest organizer accusing Minsky of sexual assault) that, while he condemned Epstein, Minsky likely did not know she was being coerced:
> We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
Someone wrote a Medium blogpost called "Remove Richard Stallman" quoting the argument. Media outlets like Vice and The Daily Beast then lied and misquoted Stallman as saying that the woman was "entirely willing" (rather than pretending to be) and as "defending Epstein". Note the deposition doesn't say she had sex with Minsky, only that Epstein told her to do so. Since then physicist Greg Benford, who was present at the time, has stated that she propositioned Minsky and he turned her down:
> I know; I was there. Minsky turned her down. Told me about it. She saw us talking and didn’t approach me.
This seems like a complete validation of the distinction Stallman was making. If what Minsky knew doesn't matter, if there's no difference between "Minsky sexually assaulted a woman" and "Epstein told a 17-year-old to have sex with Minsky without his knowledge or consent", then why did he turn her down? We're supposed to consider a dead man a rapist for sex he didn't have because of something Epstein did without his knowledge, possibly even in a failed attempt to create blackmail material against him?
Despite this, Stallman has now been pressured to resign not just from MIT but from the Free Software Foundation that he founded. Despite (and sometimes because of) his eccentricities, I think Stallman was a very valuable voice in free-software, particularly as someone whose dedication to it as an ideal helped counterbalance corporate influence and the like. But if some journalists decide he should be out and are willing to tell lies about it, then apparently that's enough for him to be pushed out.
"""
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/d59efr/computer...
For fucks sake, this is not even an accusation to Minsky.
Take a minute to appreciate the fact that Minsky is being called a Rapist because somebody said that some person told another person to have sex with him. And he turned her down.
The motte is relatively easy to defend... Richard isn't the most charming guy and comes off as a creep, so he shouldn't be a leader. But it's not the most persuasive argument.
The bailey is hard to defend... the various misinterpretations of Richard's email. Despite these interpretations being wrong, they're emotionally persuasive. If someone uses logic against them, the antagonist can always retreat to the motte.
Is it fair? (And consider that I'm looking solely at the motte part; disregarding entirely this most recent event): Well, for most definitions of fair, it is not. Nevertheless, I don't think MIT, GNU, FSF, or any other entity should suffer significant damage just to chase the ideal of someone with RMS's peculiar ways gets to do the job of being an advocate of their organization.
It boils down to this: Is it acceptable to fire someone from a job based on something they are not really responsible for?
I think if the job description itself, prior to you taking it, makes clear that: Yes, you will be fired then – that it is fine.
The vast majority of clearly public facing jobs work like this. If you're the CEO and you do something rather upsetting, but not illegal, in a private setting that leaks out and which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the company or on your ability to perform your job there... you still get fired: The board weighs the value of your presence in your C-level role vs. the next best candidate vs. the damage done to 'the brand' by leaving you there, and a swift decision is made.
It's hard to draw lines in the sand on this. Both the public-ness of your role as well as the severity of how upset the public is about the unrelated thing need to be taken into account.
Imagine some sales rep at a company has a sextape leaked from years ago. Is it fair to fire them? Probably not.
Imagine that same sales rep has a penis tattoo'd on their forehead. Is it fair to fire them? Probably yeah, and the reason is not really: "They will do a bad job at sales itself". The reason is: "Most of your job is selling the product, put a small part of it is simply reflecting on the company. And with that tattoo you're doing such an incredibly bad job at that last part, we dont even want to know how well you will be doing at the first: You're out".
My point is, for RMS? I estimate that he is on the 'his firing his justified' side of the line for virtually anybody's sense of fairness.
Yes, it doesn't make a lot of sense that his previous unacceptable behavior has been tolerated. Pressure on him, should have been so much earlier.
The straw that broke the camel's back could be the wrong metaphor. Maybe it's more like the dam burst.
In human nature it's extremely common to tolerate things too long and then bail out when something minuscule happens later.
Not ideal but easy to understand.
I don't see "human nature" as an acceptable excuse for anything at all.
It may be a straw, but it's a very heavy straw, placed at just the right location
> If Stallman's past behavior was unacceptable, then he should have been fired for that.
Indeed!
The fact that he wasn't fired for his past behaviour doesn't necessarily mean that his past behaviour was acceptable.
Not firing him for his past behaviour may just have been an error of judgement.
If I get away with (say) stealing once, that shouldn't mean I now have carte blanche to steal anything without consequence.
He was! He was fired for all that, and for this most recent incident as well. He wasn't fired for a single incident alone, but for a series of incidents, of which this was the most recent.
I also saw those accusations, but I didn't see any proof of the harassment except one girl that said Stallman asked her on a date. And bothering? you really think you can go for 60 years on this earth without bothering any person?
For me, the implication of a mattress in his office are that he might sleep there. Any other implications are in the dirty mind of the accusers.
Plus the healthy snacks his feet provide
This is the kind of fearless leader we need in the software world.
I heard about advice given to some women to keep plants, so that he does not come. But that is not the same as story about Stallman harassing someone, it is story about people thinking he is creep, but no specific on anything he was supposed to do to women without plants (hope the difference is clear).
You are repeating defamatory rumours without a shred of evidence.
April Glaser on Twitter specifically talks about accusations against him: https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/1174093253433380864
Here's the reality though, every woman who steps up and admits publicly is probably going to get harassed. Some fuckheads on the internet are going to bother her and harass them. I imagine the # of public complaints is going to be pretty low.
Somehow the definition of harassment used by a wide variety of people seems to be "I don't like his opinion" if I judge from the linked twitter post... If it goes forward this way I could picture people rallying in front of libraries and burning a lot of books. Would someone please enlighten me how "Lolita" is any less worse than RMS-ramblings?
That then also explains paragraph 3, since when you "step up" claiming you got harassed and it turns out you just disagree with the offendees opinion/behavior at large, you are harassed again by people disagreeing with you... This is kind of brain-dead but apparently a certain kind of reality happening on this planet called "earth"...
There was even a case in Melbourne where a slightly mentally impaired man was accused of sexual harassment because he’d try and be friendly to everyone and it came off wrong.
I’d like to think we’d have some amount of compassion for these people and help them function in society.
I too am autistic, and it does not excuse this behaviour. Yes people should have compassion and patience with neurodivergent people, and everyone has been with Stallman. This is not one incident, but a string of incidents that show an underlying pattern.
Exactly, it just looks like a joke, banter to lighten the situation. It all depends on context, that we don't have.
So am I and I often come off as awkward with a list of misinterpretations to the point of having a "do not interact with this person as they won't understand" list to avoid it.
His behaviour is typical of someone with an foot on the spectrum and I don't see too much oddity in his behaviour. He's obsessed with meaning of words, comes off the wrong way, seemingly no social manners by most standards yet it's incredibly consistent which hints to different interpretations of social interaction.
His behaviour isn't "problematic" in this case, rather, it's correct in a desire for exactness.
I heard this a lot - people on the spectrum damning Stallman. But isn't it called a spectrum for a reason?
Given the number of movies where this happens, i'd be very surprised that did not happen in reality from time to time, and that it is considered unacceptable.
In fact I have strong compassion for those calling it an aggression.
their life must be miserable if they can't take a simple thing like that.
It happened to me more than one time, one of them stalked me, I never called them "aggresive bitches", they just had a few problems expressing emotions, that's it and I calmly explained to them why we couldn't be together.
If you really are autistic, you should know what it means trying to be like everybody else when you're different.
In the ideal world any claim like this would be backed up with evidence.
No, he didn't.
Thomas Lord who worked with him says
> One remarkable thing about the FSF at that time, when we worked out of dinky spare offices on the campus of MIT, was the degree of participation by women. In the tiny society that was then the FSF, women were more prominent than I had seen in Silicon Valley, or acadamia prior. The general culture of inclusiveness and tolerance that RMS fostered meant that, at least when I was there alongside Bushnell, that social circle in and around the organization was feminized and all the stronger for it.
Of course he did (and does). It's well known. Here's HN from 11 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20979343
I have personally read, in the last few weeks, over a dozen statements by women who were driven out of FSF by Stallman.
I don't even move in those circles. There must be many more who don't feel like speaking up and getting harassed by all the neckbeards.
Richard Stallman, Knight for Justice - Also Hot Ladies
https://miro.medium.com/max/4080/1*lDSkAjF1958TpEafxuJsLg.jp...
And I've personally spoken with 4 of them that say the exact opposite.
Drop some name please, accusations need proof.
> I don't even move in those circles
I do.
> Richard Stallman, Knight for Justice - Also Hot Ladies
Old joke, stupid sign, nothing severe, it's been there forever together with the sticker of Amnesty International (if you haven't noticed), nobody complained for ages, suddenly high paid engineers that without GCC wouldn't have the same high paid job complain that RMS makes them feel uncomfortable, even though they "don't even move in those circles"
Let's be serious, please don't make me quote Roger Murtaugh.
Let's see them then.
I'm sure there are real testimonies of real people.
For the moment, I recommend we stick to just legal standards. (Such as if he drugged/raped someone, the way Cosby and Weinstein did.)
What did he do, exactly?
Has he been convicted of something now?
But why would you punish yourself for someone else's acts?
Of course, that moment's hesitation when picking a filesystem in an installer menu is quite different from choosing an OS :)
Obviously all a conspiracy by the diabolical Bill Gates, who definitely has time for such important conspiracies, and his evil corporation M$, to "infiltrate" Gnooo Slash Linux and take over the world. Roy Schestowitz has yet to do anything positive for free software. But, rest assured, he probably doesn't have a real PhD.
Edit: To be fair, Mono was kind of shit at the time, for purely technical reasons, and it was threatening to be used in ridiculous places despite that. That didn't happen in the end, again for technical reasons. It has steadily improved since then, and Microsoft's position around the Mono project obviously changed for the better. That, and Microsoft really didn't have trouble suing people for using Linux anyway (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-samsung-elec-se...). So he's not exactly wrong, in broad strokes. Just terrible. In an alternate universe, perhaps Roy Schestowitz's army of neckbeards would be remembered for saving the day instead.
The personal, character failings of public figures are tolerated until they run out of goodwill. Then a "scandal" occurs. Nothing new is actually discovered. We always knew about President Clinton's extra marital stuff. It just didn't matter, until it did.
I don't have anything useful to add about Outrage Culture. Along with everyone else, I'm still trying to figure it out. Closest analogy I can think of is candidate Gary Hart put his head in the lion's mouth one too many times.
--
My take on RMS is a little bit, um, unconventional. Having never met him, I imagine he's somewhere between neurotypical and an ultimatist and a square peg in a world of round holes. His pedantry regarding Minsky wasn't wrong, exactly. It was just unwittingly in bad taste. A common recurrence for RMS.
Unfortunately for RMS, this time it mattered. Per the bit about scandals above; public opinion towards RMS crossed some unmarked tipping point, and he doesn't have enough allies to help save his public image.
RMS will be fine.
And I'm actually okay with this kind of court of public opinion. I want our public figures to keep pace with the times, to adapt, to remain effective & relevant. If RMS can't or won't, then it's his time to sit down, and let someone more palatable serve as arrow catcher for a while (the job of the ultimatist).
> I want our public figures to keep pace with the times, to adapt, to remain effective & relevant
No you really don't want your public figures to try and optimize for things that result in good public opinion, though outlining my reasoning for this would probably be around 2000 words, so not doable on a phone. (I started writing, then realized how big a topic that is)
RMS could have demanded an investigation. Wait for the firestorm to subside.
"you really don't want your public figures to try and optimize for things that result in good public opinion"
Ya. I really do. Progress marches on, social norms adapt.
Despite the recurring inevitable oversteer, currently manifesting as outrage culture, no way I want to go back in time.
My only excuse is that I really didn't want RMS to be a bad guy, like ESR.
Be wary of heroes. They'll disappoint you.
He's perfectly capable of doing that himself.
There was a time where his style of firebrand-like vitriol against proprietary software was crucial. But that time is over. GNU/Linux won, it won years ago.
GNU does not have the influence it once did. It is an organisation geared up to solve the problems of the early 90s.
The real crux is this, "computing" and free software is not the preserve of academia anymore. It should be for everyone. Which means getting rid of deliberately antagonistic behaviour.
It serves noone.
I want my children to follow in my footsteps, as I followed my dad. But they can't do that if we cling to these idols who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes. There is just no need anymore. It doesn't work, it doesn't make for better code.
Crucially it serves as an excuse to let abusers, psychopaths and other nasties continue to abuse people "because RMS, Jobs & Ballmer all did it"
No, that kind of behaviour has to stop.
What the fuck? What percentage of consumer computing devices in the world are running free software? Windows+OSX+iOS+Android account for >96% of market share. In what world, in what possible conception, did GNU/Linux "win"?
>GNU does not have the influence it once did. It is an organisation geared up to solve the problems of the early 90s.
Like: free phone OS, decentralization, federation and self-hosting, real-time voice and video chat, accessibility, an AI assistant. [1]
>cling to these idols who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes.
>Crucially it serves as an excuse to let abusers, psychopaths and other nasties continue to abuse people "because RMS, Jobs & Ballmer all did it"
Again, what the fuck, am I seriously missing something here, or when did Stallman ever "abuse" someone? How is he a "psychopath"? A "bully"? A "nastie" (what is this, 2nd grade)?
I'm sorry, but being a rude and obnoxious person doesn't mean the local lynch mob gets to decide when you have to step down from the foundation you created in the name of ensuring human freedom for generations to come.
Linux has hardly "won". Most of my friends and coworkers use Mac or Windows. Your post is filled with short-sighted, opinionated nonsense.
RMS continues to fight the good fight despite the public turning on him so readily.
No, but considering that his is a position of mostly PR and management nowadays, the majority of the community can agree that having a rude and obnoxious person as their visible head is neither doing any favors to their external image nor helping them move forward internally.
Linux has won in the server (and others) by being the better technical product. Linux has lost the desktop war (and laptop, and mobile unless you count android) by being the inferior product in terms of UX, ease of use and in general ignoring everything that isn't pure technical areas. As the parent comment said, this was fine when tech was mostly isolated from mainstream users, but it doesn't cut it anymore. We need new kinds of people, and new visions, for new kinds of challenges.
This is not a judgement of him as a person or his former work, mind you. It's a judgement of the qualities that we'd hope for in a leader/public face and whether RMS fits the role nowadays.
I am unaware we voted on this topic.
Also Linux won on the server because it is free as in beer.
Maybe if you get formal education or go to a boot camp to learn software development. The "future of computing" is in walled gardens like Chromebooks, iPads or Windows S. Not allowing software development on them is part of the added value. Google plans on getting rid of Linux and replace it with Fuchsia once it has matured.
Not in any real sense. There is a lot of open source[1] software in use but the current state of computing doesn't have much to do with freedom.
Open Source may have won, Free Software hasn't.
[citation needed]
Anyway, even if it was true, has him become disposable?
> want my children to follow in my footsteps, as I followed my dad
Maybe your dad wasn't such a great person for other people except you though.
Maybe I would prefer my kids being more like RMS than me or your dad or you.
What you want it's irrelevant.
> who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes
he's been bullied all of his life, because he never conformed to any norm.
And there are people like you keep doing that.
There's that too.
I don't want my children to be in a workplace run my angry bullies. I don't want anyone's kids to be run by angry bullies. But then you knew that already, you're a clever sausage really.
> And there are people like you keep doing that.
are you seriously trying to gatekeep non-conformism.
I get his point, but we have to draw lines somewhere, even if they're imperfect. It's like saying speed limits don't stop all speeding, or gun laws don't prevent all gun violence. Of course not, but in both cases we have to try. We have to try to protect minors whose brains aren't fully developed as well, even if pedophiles don't like it.
RMS did walk back his comments after speaking with close friends of his on the subject, essentially agreeing with what I'm saying here.
im sure it leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths what the leader of GNU has done and how he thinks.
RMS loves freedom more than many of us, that's why "consent" is so important to him (I guess).
Part of what gave Epistine the ability to do what he did was the fear people had of speaking about what they understood to be reality when they knew it would upset their coworkers or employers.
RMS’s lack of that fear (regardless of wether his ideas truly corresponded with reality) is what got him fired. This demonstrates that those fears aren’t unfounded and empowers certain kinds of extremely abusive people far more than any semantic argument about rape or pedophilia could.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when people leap to the defense of people in positions of institutional and cultural power who behave in a way that disempowers and dehumanizes marginalized people.
See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133...
I'm sorry, but this isn't a prerequisite for working in the software industry. You are not allowed to vilify someone over having an opinion about gender, just like you shouldn't fire someone for having a different opinion on it than you.
"Leah was at the time struggling with gender dysphoria and substance abuse. Since then, she has been managing these issues. She agrees that her behaviour was rash and is determined to find a unifying solution."
The people involved have moved on. The internet, however, is still trying to sling mud where there is none in an embarrassing display of social lynching and lack of loyalty to people who have done so much for human freedom.
No proof of that.
>and made them uncomfortable
Not a crime.
>he outright fired a transgender woman from the FSF for reporting her transphobic coworker
No proof of that, no proof of the coworker being transphobic, also all of that is not a crime.
>See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133....
That's the same person that accused Linus Torvalds of harassment and made him quit. Coincidence?
That sounds terribly exaggerated. If this is the way to describe Stallman, what adjectives could be reserved to the much worse people out there?
You may not care about a random dude in the internet giving you an advice, but consider both sides of the coin and don't fall so quickly into manichaeism.
I struggle with names at times...
And now pronouns? Uhhhh, I bet I screw it up more than 50% of the time. The differences in people (don't say god bless you you to some indians or muslims when they sneeze, for example) are more than I can keep track of at times. Does that make me a creep?
There was one guy his chose "The Great and Powerful <something>" for his pronoun. Yeah, I'll remember that...
At what point do you become a creep for not remembering? At what point do you become a target for the SJW hit squad?
Would you mind providing a citation for this? I am legitimately curious, Leah for example retracted their comments on the issue.
> Not to mention his refusal to respect the pronouns of trans, queer, and nonbinary folks.
Please elaborate. This is the first time that I hear of such an accusation.
> See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133....
I don't see anything wrong there. What is wrong with believing that victimless crimes should be legal? Also, asking someone on a date is harassment now? What?
The mass hysteria and instant justice demands of the twitter outrage mob has killed nuance or shades of grey from public discourse. I really really hate that anything in the center is taboo. I lay the blame squarely on the far-left for this state of affairs. They started this war and this trend. God knows where it will end.
I'm very political and some of my peeps (on the left) exhaust me. I disregard anyone telling someone else how they should be living; remove the log from your own eye first and so forth. Left, right, up, down -- they're all the same. I call them scolds.
I'll now have to consider your thesis (about scolds being a flavor of conformists).
Maybe it's just me but these news surprise me most because, of all people, Stallman is a pioneer of some kinds of activism that these people also practices, like nitpicking about language or the idea of purity.
The first one is responsible moral position, the second one is witch hunt.
For example Snowdon topics posted during the European morning and then later on American users share their thoughts and comments. And then later on as Silicon Valley comes online.
same with RMS and other cultural issues, when just looking at the comments it's clear that there's differences in opinion due to different cultures.
I have not really observed these differences in pure tech stories though.
I don't think anyone reasonable is trying to prevent him from airing his personal opinions (contra what many people are claiming in this thread), and there are indeed many people who are open to listening to those opinions -- but whether you think he ought to leave GNU or not, it's unfortunate that he triggers such strong negative reactions from many people. Some pretty responsible and knowledgeable people such as the EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep". [1]
While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse that removing him from his positions, as two organizations have done, was the right decision[3], I also believe that that's not really relevant for this particular thread. He founded GNU. He runs GNU. He probably can't be forced by anyone to leave GNU. None of that changes the fact that he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before.
[1] https://twitter.com/evacide/status/1172287971220848640
[2] He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
[3] Even putting aside the forum in which he made these comments, and the things he has said and done at other times.
He lost or never had the trust of some very small but very vocal group of the community.
> EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep".
And we must take her judgement on people as accurate? why? Also, an accusation of "creep" should not be enough to erase all his life's work. What does "creep" means anyway? Asperger? Social inept person? Modern tech were built by creeps.
>He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
He didn't said that.
>he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before.
Why not? Software is created by "creeps" like us anyway, not by social activists. I don't see why a "creep" will not be effective as a leader.
Maybe it’s time to change things up a bit?
I didn't say we should. Though I trust her judgment more than, say, yours (an anonymous person on the Internet). I used it as evidence that Stallman doesn't have the trust of the community. Also "creep" is almost certainly talking about the way he reportedly treats women, nothing to do with his social graces.
> He didn't said that.
He did say that. I've posted links with evidence of that already in this thread.
[2] No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.
Please re-read my comment. You're reacting emotionally and claiming that I said things I did not say. I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him, not as proof of anything he did or didn't do.
> No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.
He did say that. Find the actual email and read it. No, really, please do it. I'll even link a copy of it for you. https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/ He literally did say it.
It's not "people in the community", it's one person calling him what people usually call socially maladjusted males who dared to exist in their vicinity. It is a bad word, demeaning, devoid of content and only expressing hate and revulsion.
> He did say that.
Nope, he did not. And I say it because not only I read the email, I actually understood it. You didn't. Not RMSs fault.
> He literally did say it.
He literally did not. As I explained below, it makes as much sense as saying something who objects to the use of the term "piracy" thinks intellectual property laws should not exist. And the word "literally" does not mean what you think it means.
>The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:
>The injustice is in the word “assaulting”.
>The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
>We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
So the claim is that (assuming Minsky had sex with an underage sex trafficking victim), we shouldn't say he assaulted her. Why shouldn't we say he assaulted her? Because it "presumes that he applied force". Why is it the case that he didn't apply force? Because ("plausibly") "she presented herself to him as entirely willing."
So if an underage trafficking victim presents herself as entirely willing to a man she has sex with, that man did not commit sexual assault. Because sexual assault "presumes that he applied force".
That is exactly what I've said this entire thread. My original claim, which apparently was inciting enough to cause this furor:
> He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
RMS uttered some awful opinion, and this person threatened to burn MIT to the ground as a result. If true, this person, who is identified as "Salem, Robotics student who started Remove Stallman campaign" needs to be removed from MIT immediately for making this threat. Is that something that we can all agree on?
Shouldn't we be making phone calls to the Robotics department at MIT about this threat? Why has this received no media attention? "MIT student threatens to burn MIT to the ground" is certainly a headline that would capture attention.
* I have no immediate reason to think they are at MIT, so I don't think it's likely that they can be removed.
* "Burn it to the ground" is obviously metaphorical language, which means (as the person themselves said), that anyone and everyone at MIT who stands in the way of firing Stallman should be fired too. (Note that they didn't "threaten" to burn it to the ground, as you say, because then it wouldn't make sense as a metaphor.)
Note that I'm not defending the language or the expressed wish, so don't attack me over that. I'm only clarifying the circumstances in which that statement was made for you.
"Creep" is a description of how attractive you personally feel someone is.
By that rationale it should be okay for someone to describe her as "hot", and question her professional capacity on that assessment, e.g. "she is way too attractive to be the EFF's director of cybersecurity", that is, casting aspersions because of personal preferences.
Not really? Where did you get this definition fron?
Seems like it's a pastime over at the EFF who can be outraged the most in the vilest manner (senior staff technologist):
https://twitter.com/cooperq/status/1173802200901939200
From their home page:
"The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation."
Maybe it's time to stop supporting the EFF until they decide to re-focus on their core mission instead of being a den of hypocricy.
It is much better to accuse Stallman in that instance that he was mansplaining and contributing to workplace toxicity, and/or to accuse Stallman of a historical pattern of objectifying women. Those are better because they are closer to the truth. But people like simpler narratives, that he said this one horrible thing, when it is not even that far fetched to show using the exact same quote that he was actually arguing quite an opposite, or orthogonal, point.
The other thing about this is that people ignore the context of the speaker; in this case Stallman was talking about media abuse of terminology. To complain about media manipulation is a very standard, leftist position. So like the above, to implicitly suggest that he was using this position as a cover for his personal misogyny, has merit, but nobody cares about this angle, because again it's too complicated to sort through.
> We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that.
Stallmans defense of Minsky is reasoning that he could have been an unknowing participant who wasn't aware of the lack of consent.
His opinion on the age of consent is another matter:
> Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
Source: https://pastebin.com/658yfLj5
I believe RMS is on record saying that he thinks the idea of a legal "age of consent" is a nonsense. It's entirely an arguable position that if two 16-year-olds have sex together, they have not necessarily raped one-another. He's saying that it's not the age that makes it rape, and that therefore the law is an ass. The law effectively defines consent as something that cannot legally be given by someone younger than X. Obviously the younger someone is, the less likely it is that they can give consent; RMS is complaining that the law gives X an arbitrary value.
One can disagree with him, either with a proper argument, or simply by denouncing him; but it's not morally reprehensible for him to reason in that way.
This is not a point I particularly care about, but it's worth pointing out that you are wrong, so far as I can tell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_Ameri...
Even for American's travelling to that country? Even for prostitution?
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...
But you'll notice that nothing about my point hinges on whether RMS was right or wrong. My claim was about what RMS said (which you seem to grant), not about whether he was correct in saying it.
There are at least three levels of analysis - semantic (which are proper words describing the act), descriptive legal (whether the commited act is crime) and normative legal (whether the commited act should be crime).
Note that the law does not prescribe language (if the law defines some crime named XYZ mean it overrides common language meaning of XYZ). It is the other way - criminal law defines which classes of acts are crimes and then uses common language names for them (which may or may not fits perfectly).
Stallman first made semantic algument about 'sexual assault' and later later did semantic or perhaps normative legal argument about rape definition.
(With second reading, the rape definition comment was also clearly semantic.)
He never has been, if you ask me. The Unix-like operating system he invented is known to the public as "Linux", despite his repeated, loud insistence that it's a misnomer. But hell, GNU is his project; in fact it's him. GNU without RMS is not GNU, it's something else.
[1] I don't read twitter, sorry. [2] That's not what he said; you've just repeated the apparently-deliberate distortions of the tech press. [3] By "these comments", do you mean his defence of Minsky on the CSAIL mailing list? He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse. Read his actual remarks (and read them carefully; he uses precise language). Pay no attention to the way they have been twisted by Vice and TechCrunch - two publishers whose words I will in future be taking with a bushel of salt.
Please read the thread, including my extensive quotes and links. I'm not making the "distortions" that, say, the Vice article made. In fact, this proves you read my comment too quickly because you assume I did that:
>He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse.
And look at my comment again. I never claimed he did. Vice did. I claimed he did something very specific, which you can find directly and literally in his email. Maybe you don't think he should have been fired over it. That's one thing. But he did say it.
Edit: I saw you were downvoted, so I've upvoted you again in the hope you aren't just here to troll. This thread is toxic enough without people getting arbitrarily downvoted, even if their opinions are wrong.
So let's look at the worst case possible circumstance - that a man who repeatedly makes comments that are interpreted as pro-pedophilia and has a history of inappropriate conduct with young (albiet legal) women might actually act in ways that he has publicly justified.
In that circumstance, no one can say that the warning signals were not there. That would be on all of us, and leaving him in a position of power would continue the possibility of abuse.
For the FSF and GNU to have a future (as opposed to "open source"), they need to evolve beyond Stallman one way or other. Associating these institutions with Stallman going forward exposed them to the risk (worst case) of being the catholic church at Stallman's alter. At best, they are fighting a fight that has nothing to do with their primary mission.
To an outsider with no skin anywhere in this, it is just shameful how this has played out.
Forgetting Stallman for a second - This is a weak argument. There are many reasons not to step forward with public accusations of someone; even more reasons not to take legal action; and even more reasons if that person is famous and has significant public credit.
Also, indeed, after a person casts the first stone at someone, others are quick to follow - but that doesn't mean they don't have a good reason to cast a stone; it's just an aspect of human group/mass psychology.
1. It puts a very high bar for establishing guilt (at least in principle; in practice it might be a toss-up), commensurate with the punishment being state violence, which is supposed to be a rare and extreme measure not be taken lightly (again, in practice, the US loves to convinct and jail people).
2. A lot of deplorable behavior is legal; and some acceptable or even worthy behavior is illegal.
That doesn't mean it MUST be 100% tolerated in all capacities though - many organizations might not want to have a creepy weirdo without social graces as their president.
I don't have a personal opinion if Stallman should have been pressured to resign from the FSF or MIT it not, it's not my place to judge. I admit I've never been a fan of his though - he's always come off as incredibly grating to me.
I did not heard any accusation that would cross the legal line afaik. The accusations I have seen are all about inapropriate this or that, but I did not seen accusation of rape or anything like that.
Plus, the actual players involved in that institution seem to talk about these issues in person. Not on blogs or journals. We do not know who came forward with what in FSF or MIT.
Why would any victim want to destroy their careers by making a lawsuit against such a prominent person.
People like the majority of posters in this thread will call the accuser a character assassin, fame seeker or a liar.
"Is the USA not one of the most empowered countries for women?"
Lol. Just call them a liar and become president or get a seat on the supreme court.
In both cases since it would make it easier for closed source software to make use of GPL software.
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.
For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).
“””
It is hard to choose to which comment to reply, so I’ll leave a general message to anyone who thinks that RMS resignation is good for a reason that was used for it and that one-sided mob rule is above all.
His comments were formally correct. You cannot beat logic. You can scream and jump through as many hysterical hoops as you want, stigmatize the dead, but you will not get any respect from a majority of thinking population. You will never win this war by shutting throats. It is a war on logic. You will be disliked on a basis of being a noisy moron. All you do now is to train more and more people’s habit to cover real intents and reimplement them in politically correct ways against you, as there is no more place to speak without your picky attention. This virtual noose you invented will finally tighten around your own neck.
"Even if it would have been legally rape, it shouldn't be called 'assault' because it would just have been statutory rape, and really we should consider whether statutory rape is morally wrong."
I don't believe there is any formal logic to prove whether it is or isn't appropriate to call something assault.
Goodbye.
>I don't believe there is any formal logic to prove whether it is or isn't appropriate to call something assault.
Iow, you believe that there is no proofs for harm of statutory rape. Why? (I don't understand your goodbye either.)
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License...
Also, Chief Gnuisance gives me all these feelings of nostalgia for my teenage years spent learning to compile the Unichrome Linux driver to play Unreal Tournament on a Via VT8378. All that silly nonsense about GNU's Not Unix.
I'm glad the right culture for software was set up back then. It could have gone so many other ways.
1. He said controversial stuff.
2. He's a representative of organizations that don't want him to say controversial stuff.
3. He got kicked around for it.
Quit defending his behavior. It's not a good look. It doesn't matter if you think he's "technically correct" (which is highly debatable, anyway).
You're enabling bad behavior if you think this should go on without any kind of blowback.
This is the tech version of "locker room talk". It's all good so long as you're on the same team, right?
Quite a paradoxical situation: the organizations in question are no longer fitting - neither the community, nor the leaders.
Stallman co-created and led a community. There were various organizations established to help the community and to benefit from it. Somehow the organizations became detached from both the community and one of the most prominent leaders, to the point of taking a stand against both.
Here's to hoping one day the free software community's voice can reach Free Software Foundation better than the Twitter outrage mob.
- His "crime" was to play down an accusation on an acquaintance by arguing on the sense of words. It might have been insensitive (use your own judgement), but it's hardly heinous.
- As a mirror question, why waste so much time and energy trying to pull down someone that merely committed social gaffe? If people really have to hunt witches (they don't), they are some much scarier ones running around. Myself, I think it has to do with Stallman being an easy target.
Your mirror question is missing the decades of context that led up to this.
Edit: I should note that “asshole” isn’t a random insult. It’s highly relevant. People get fired for being assholes while at work. For jobs that involve interacting with other people (which is just about all of them, including Stallman’s) this is not only factual, but perfectly reasonable. Asshole loses job, what’s the big deal? The only surprising thing is that it took this long!
Nobody wishes him ill, but he has no place as a leader in the free software movement if it is to flourish. Of course, he can participate, and as president of GNU that might be an OK level of participation.
Do not expect us to believe he has been treated unfairly, however: he has been treated the same way any other employee at MIT would be treated, and as the FSF has seen fit given its organisational goals.
[citation needed] and distraction. So what if he didn't do anything of what he is currently accused of, I am sure he has done lots of wrong before (of which I am going to list exactly nothing)?
> he has been treated the same way any other employee at MIT would be treated.
He has resigned to shield MIT from public pressure after lots of lies have appeared about things he hasn't said.
I mean... it's plainly obvious given what happened that plenty of people do.
Beside it's not like the media is lacking in energy to spend on inciting social justice mobs.
Why does this community care so much about what happens to this asshole?
It is a false dichotomy, you are pretending that defending the injustice done to Stallman somehow takes away focus from other injustices which is not at all apparent.
The community cares so much about him because he has done significant amounts for the good of humanity. Some people blown up by a drone strike aren't known at all by the community and haven't proven themselves to be invaluable. It's the same reason that you would be sad when a person close to you dies and yet you don't feel the same way when some African kid starves.
People indeed get fired for smaller infractions but those people haven't even closely created as much value as Stallman.
This is like being in a room with people who may be known to possess drugs and then running your mouth when the cops bust in. "Maybe cocaine isn't so bad!"
Just shut up. Plead the 5th. "Talk to my lawyer, representative or whatever." Take your right to remain silent because any stupid sh you say can and will be used against you.
Stay in your lane, especially as a representative of others. If you're going to run your mouth, then at least wait until you get home and do it on your own equipment using personal channels. And even then you still might be representing others.
Opinions aren't cheap. They have a real cost. You should be well aware of what those costs might be and the risks you are facing. Then go ahead and give your opinion if you're willing to pay those costs. This is a skill everyone needs to have, but many don't. Even if he did the calcs and decided the cost was worth it, he still did so as a rep of an org which didn't share his values.
Gnu must be a different situation and a different culture. I assume he would have already been forced out if it were possible. Maybe they have an air-gapped room in the basement with a desk and a red stapler.
I.e. "before trying to form your own opinions, make sure you can afford to". Nice world we live in.
I don't disagree with you wrt the current state of affairs, I just find it rather sad.
Feature, not a bug. Having a real cost means it could also have real value. When someone has taken a great risk to do something, then it carries more weight to take it seriously. Don't be using fighting words unless you're ready to fight. ;)
And we already know how to do this with our daily actions. It just seems we're too quick to give the mouth a free pass to get loose. RMS believed in free software and much the reason why he has fans is because he backs his words up with his actions. He has worked his tail off over the years and he gives up the convenience that non-free software provides. When he talks about free software, he backs that up with a massive lifetime workload dedicated to the subject.
Why risk that to talk about something which he has no clue about, especially when the heat is bashing the door in. He's representing other people and he's in a public position. The leader in the room is that guy who tells everyone to shut up, flush your contraband down the toilet, don't talk to anyone and look like you did nothing wrong. He failed in that, and he's not the sort of guy I would want in my car if we got pulled over.
If he wants to try something different, may I suggest Legos? Puzzles? If you take up explosives as a hobby, then don't be surprised if you get your leg blown off.
Unless Dave Chappele is your press secretary, stay away from any subjects which might be tagged as "sexual assuault" "underage girls" "age of consent". I got anxiety just typing all that. He's nuts.
Exactly. I'll never achieve something as big as GNU or FSF - because I get anxiety just thinking at the personal consequences.
Because of that, allow me to be sad that the world thinks what happened to RMS is ok. "Overdue", even, some would say.
I miss the good old days when we burned people for their opinions. The ideas were worth so much more when you could get literally killed for a thing your husbands mistress could say you said 20 years ago.
That's why people who are scared of their own opinion never accomplish anything.
Maybe he thought he was better off speaking his mind (consequences be damned) than shutting up for years and years.
I think that may be true. I suspect that skill of knowing when to STFU may be one that is exhibited by some successful serial business leaders; I mean the hired-help sort, not startup CEOs. And I suspect the skill is uncommon among techs and engineers, who tend to have a "whole truth, nothing but the truth" attitude.