Iāve been thinking about this for a while now.
Richard Stallman has been practically synonymous with Free Software since its inception. And there are good reasons why. It was his idea, and it was his passion that made the movement what it is today.
I deeply believe in the mission of the Free Software movement. But more and more, it seems that in order to survive, the Free Software movement may need to distance itself from him.
Richard Stallman has said some really disturbingly reprehensible things on multiple occasions (one and two). (He has said heās changed these opinions, but it seems to me the damage is done.)
Heās asked that people blame him and not the FSF for these statements, but it seems naive to me to expect that to be enough not to tarnish the FSFās reputation in the eyes of most people.
And Richard Stallman isnāt the only problematic figure associated with the Free Software movementā¦ Eben Moglen (founder, Direct-Council, and Chairman of Software Freedom Law Center which is closely associated with the FSF) has been accused of much abusive and anti-LGBTQIA+ behavior over which the Free Software Foundation Europe and Software Freedom Concervancy have cut ties with the SFLC and Moglen (one and two).
Even aside from the public image problems, it seems like the FSF and SFLC have been holding back the Free Software movement strategically. Eben Moglan has long been adamant that the GPL shouldnāt be interpreted as a contract ā only as a copyright license. What the SFC is doing now with the Visio lawsuit is only possible because the SFC had the courage to abandon that theory.
I sense thereās a rift in the Free Software movement. Especially given that the SFC and FSF Europe explicitly cutting ties with the SFLC and Moglen. And individual supporters of Free Software are going to have to decide which parties in this split are going to speak for and champion the cause of the community as a whole.
I imagine itās pretty clear by this point that I favor the SFC in this split. I like what Iāve seen from the SFC in general. Not just the Visio lawsuit. But also the things Iāve heard said by SFC folks.
If the Free Software movement needs a single personality to be its face moving forward, Iād love for that face to be Bradley M. Kuhn, executive director of the SFC. He seems to have all of Stallmanās and Moglenās assets (passion, dedication, an unwillingness to bend, and experience and knowledge of the legal aspects of Free Software enforcement) perhaps even more so than Stallman and Moglen do. And Kuhn excels in all the areas where Stallman and Moglen perhaps donāt so much (social consciousness, likeability, strategy.) I canāt say enough good things about Kuhn, really. (And his Wikipedia page doesnāt even have a ācontroversiesā section.) (Also, please tell me there arenāt any skeletons in his closet.)
Even if the community does come to a consensus that the movement should distance itself from Stallman and Moglen, itāll be difficult to achieve such a change in public perception and if itās achieved, it may come at a cost. After all, Stallman is the first person everybody pictures when the FSF is mentioned. And acknowledging the problems with the Free Software movementās āold brassā may damage the reputation of Free Software as a whole among those who might not differentiate between the parties in this split. But I feel it may be necessary for the future of the Free Software movement.
Thatās my take, anyway. Iāll hop down off of my soap box, now. But I wanted to bring this up, hopefully let some folks whose ideals align with those of the Free Software movement about all this if they werenāt already aware, and maybe see what folks in general think about the future of the Free Software movement.
For what itās worth, the claims of ālinguistic purismā and āobjective truthā are the same thing I was referring to by pedanticism, and āunderestimating peopleās feelingsā is the same as what I was referring to by ābad timeā. This is the same thing, written from a more positive viewpoint. It does not contradict what I said, as it doesnāt really say ātoo precise to understandā, which was your claim.
I also think itās a bit unfair to expect everyone to have a concrete, fully fleshed out opinion on LLMs so soon. Theyāre evidently working towards it, so Iāll give them patience.
Look, if you want to claim that ālinguistic purismā doesnāt mean āoverly precise,ā thatās your problem. If you want to support someone who āunderestimates peopleās feelingsā (a.k.a. āa creepā), thatās your problem. If you want to believe that, any day now, a group that has fallen on its face for decades will finally work out its issues, thatās your problem. As Iāve asked, please stop trying to make it my problem. Youāve made your point that youāre a true believer, now walk away, because youāre only going to convince me that youāre a terrible person, from here.
I was being critical of his actions myself š
Thereās a time and a place for pedantry, thatās my point. And what I initially said is that Stallman did not do it at the right time, right place.
And all I said in my previous comment regarding RMS is that what I said and what that example you brought up to try to discredit what I said are conveying the same story, worded differently.
On the topic of wording, you can claim whatever you like, but ālinguistic purismā, āoverly preciseā, whatever word you want to use to make your argument look better, falls under being pedantic, which if youāll remember is what I said. Iām not claiming pedantry isnāt āoverly preciseā, technically it is, but thatās irrelevant in many cases where it is just unwanted. So how about you stop spinning my words to say something I didnāt.
Also, āoverly preciseā isnāt what you said, and not what I replied to. Donāt try to retroactively change this conversation. You said ātoo precise to be understoodā, which nobody is in fact saying.
And āunderestimated feelingsā isnāt the āexcuseā you think it is. Nor does it mean what you have said. Itās a fact. He underestimated the emotional reaction that would happen due to his misplaced pedantry. Itās kind of impossible to argue against that. Unless youāre saying he knew it would blow up in his face?
And Iām not talking about how the FSF might start dealing with future issues, Iām talking about how theyāre already working towards it.
You sound like you need to go outside and touch grass. Do you really need to attack people on the internet because they donāt think the FSF is useless?
Iām also not sure what Iām āmaking your problemā and what Iām doing wrong to you, you brought something up, I replied addressing it. This is how you communicate. If youāre not willing to discuss something, you shouldnāt say anything at all.
My takeaway from this is that youāre quite emotionally immature and logically challenged. Oh and you should probably work on your reading comprehension. Unless youāre deliberately misconstruing what I said? Have a nice day.
For clarity, your first interaction with me was to accuse me of lying. I have twice asked you to leave me out of your fantasies. And yet, youāre still here telling me that Iāve done something dishonest by looking at the FSF and having an opinion. Iāve been polite. I have not attacked you. Youāve been insulting and taken everything personally.
Stop projecting your immaturity onto me. Stop imagining that youāre going to win my approval or respect. Stop imagining that my insistence that you stop bothering me is an attempt to have a conversation with you. And above all, go away, as Iāve requested three times.
You could always stop responding. I mean, I canāt help but notice youāve not addressed anything I said in my last reply. With your changing quotes half way through and all, clearly trying to damage my argument with liesā¦
Oh and you absolutely have attacked me. Take one good look at the tone directed towards me in your last few replies. Iām a terrible person and all.
I respect that you have an opinion on the FSF, however the facts you were presenting to justify it to other people are either outdated or wrong. You can have your opinion, but you have to expect your facts to be scrutinised. Especially when youāre using them as a stick to beat things with, and attempting to bend them to fit your preconceptions.
Also, you were lying, yeah. Nobody has been unironically saying āheās too precise to understandā, amongst other things, and your examples do not map to that meaning correctly. Itās an incredibly weak argument where there is much stronger link and more obvious meanings of those words (pedantry).
Why you keep replying I donāt understand. If it bothers you so much, stop. This is a public forum, you chose to engage in this topic, you have to expect that other people will also engage. This isnāt your personal soapbox.
Yep. You canāt take a direct request to stop harassing me. Blocking, like I should have done when I first spotted that you had nothing useful to say. Silly me for giving a person the benefit of the doubt.