Or is this yet another chapter of someone's envy resorting to character assassination instead of finding contentment in their own work?
If these people succeeded in their apparent goal of making RMS less popular, do they think the world will love them for it? Why aint they signing their name?
I think you should at least skim it before you comment.
>The case against Stallman is clear, and yet the free software community has failed to act, in particular at the level of institutions and leadership but also in the form of grassroots support for Stallman. Many defenses of Stallman rely on a comfortable ignorance: ignorance of the scope and depth of Stallman’s political campaign against women and victims of sexual violence, or a comfortable belief that Stallman ceased his problematic behavior following his 2021 re-instatement in the Free Software Foundation. Some believe that Stallman’s speech has not caused material harm, or that his fringe views are not taken seriously; we provide evidence to dismiss all of these arguments in this report.
One thing I have consistently encountered when discussing contentious topics with people is that intentional ignorance is a tactic. One cannot be held responsible for acting one way or another on an issue if they do not know anything about it. Women I know in industry report this as by far the most common reaction of male coworkers to one of their colleagues facing allegations of sexual harassment. They don't know anything about it, it seems complicated, they haven't followed it closely, they don't want to get involved, etc. It is very frustrating and I am glad the report has identified this phenomenon and is pointing out this has been going on for long enough that it cannot be reasonably deployed by anybody.
I am a previous PhD student who worked under Marvin Minsky, and I do believe that there is no evidence that Minsky was present for any sexual misconduct, and some of the quotes about Minksy do not mention that there is no evidence of Minsky's sexual misconduct. I believe the quotes about Minsky unfairly harm Minsky's reputation.
Again, this is great work, and I'm mostly nitpicking from my very particular perspective as someone who has worked directly under Minsky.
If this was being released 10-20 years ago, I'd suspect the involvement of Microsoft and their allies. These days, who knows. The Free Software movement has been attacked from many angles over the years, from those who want to destroy it completely to those who want to control and usurp it. There certainly are a long list of suspects for who may have authored this screed.
It would be interesting to see if a stylometric analysis could unmask those responsible. Perhaps we'd find dark skeletons in their closets, as is so often the case for those who point accusatory fingers at others using spurious evidence.
https://mastodon.social/@report_press/113306313558293261
We can already see the influence of this in the comments on this post.
A document berating him for being a weirdo, while shrilly exaggerating all the "evidence" in an effort to destroy him and everything he's built over his lifetime, is not particularly useful or necessary.
The purpose of this is clear, and it's very telling that it's being fired at Stallman from the shadows by the unknown and unaccountable.
(I don't think there's some kind of organized pro-RMS manipulation happening, either. I think there's a fairly large segment of HN readers who minimize credible reports of RMS's reprehensible behavior because of his past accomplishments and his importance to the free software movement.)
There's a reason why codes of conduct, especially the Contributor Covenant, are de rigueur in the open source world. They help keep the creeps and the fash out, and make the work environment more harmonious.
RMS is a creep who's been grandfathered in because he came from a time when creeps were much more tolerated. Times have changed, and so have values. We are far less tolerant of creeps, no matter how talented they may otherwise be because they disrupt the working environment unacceptably. It's time for that grandfather clause to end.
Drupal and Larry Garfield years ago, and most recently Python and Tim Peters.
However, I will state just for the record here that our researchers have looked into the allegations regarding Minsky and do not feel comfortable exonerating him or standing up to defend his reputation, as it were -- we find the evidence plausible, but not conclusive. But our report is about Stallman, not Minsky, so we have not made a point of it in the report.
I'm half serious when I say he's the reason so many women at MIT went to biotech instead, and so we can thank him for mRNA vaccines.
But that is no longer the case. Refusing to be in the same room as him will in no way retard your progress in computer science nowadays. If anything, it enhances your prospects.
So I don't see a problem with having a space marked "Beware the RMS," where he can keep on with his work and the people who can put up with him, do. I don't see a problem with that space being marked "FSF" either. Namespace is a large space.
There are people who find it very enjoyable to destroy someone's reputation (for basically the same reason that there are people for whom murder is such a turn-on that they cannot stop themselves from doing it till they get caught).
Also, there might be ways to profit or personally benefit from a campaign like this. E.g., one of the authors of this web page might covet one of the titles or jobs Stallman currently holds -- for themselves or for a friend. E.g., Stallman or one of his supporters might be approached in the coming days with an offer: I can make this web page disappear from public view, but it will cost you. Basically any rival has an incentive to try to get you fired and to destroy your reputation.
I suspect that we as a society should adopt the general rule that anonymous attacks on the reputation of a person should be ignored. In the absence of such a rule, anyone can keep on waging campaigns of reputation destruction (in pursuit of getting ahead somehow or of a twisted kind of enjoyment) with little to no cost or risk to themselves. The attack can include lies, and even if the lies are discovered, again there is no cost or consequence to the attacker.
You could say "what about out of context quoting!?" but he seems quite consistent in his ideas and it would be quite a coincidence that so many excerpts expressing the same idea are taken out of context.
As a measure of how trivial the charges against RMS really are, over on Mastodon the post for this report is being replied to by people getting working up about "enbyphobia", of all the who-gives-a-fuck complaints. And being boosted by the account that published this report. No-one should be taking their crap seriously. It's absurd.
At this point it's nothing more than crowdsourced bullying of an old, cancer-stricken man who doesn't deserve any of this. Shame on everyone participating in this mob.
https://stallmansupport.org/richard-stallman-honors-and-awar...
I take no position.
That policy would have allowed Richard Nixon to keep the office he stole.
Sometimes one does the right thing not because the world will love you, but because it is the right thing.
The page that's most responsive to what's brought up is here: https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-agai.... However, I feel that it doesn't really debunk the core accusations here, which is essentially that Stallman's views on what constitutes consent just aren't acceptable in today's world.
The Free Software movement has been completely routed. MS owns GitHub. The farmers fighting for the "right to repair" their tractors are the "front" of the "battle" for user empowerment. But sure let's beat the shit out of the dead horse that's actually a real live old man with cancer who wrote fucking Emacs, see if that helps?
> I don't think it is wrong to distribute "child porn" images, even when they [depict] children rather than adolescents. However, making them is wrong if it involves real sex with a child. For the sake of opposing sexual abuse of real children, I suggest that you boycott the images that involve real children. Imaginary children can't be hurt by drawing them.
In other words: pornography involving 14, 15, 16 year olds is all good according to Stallman. He is enabling all of the above by changing the definition of what child pornography is, responding to someone who emailed him asking for advice, and then posting about it publicly.
This is telling. They don't want discourse, they want to silence and bully everyone who disagrees with them so only they are allowed to speak.
All they have is anonymous accusations with zero proof, an off-context quote regarding an MIT professor, off-color jokes made 50 years ago and a couple of (retracted) opinions that are no worse than the things being said by prominent philosophers like Michel Foucault and Simone de Beauvoir.
The message is clear: HN has a "bias" (according to them) and their readers must take action in order to discuss it.
It could be that readers here disagree with them, it could be that readers don't buy their attempt at character assassination, instead they play victims as if there was a grand conspiracy to keep a homeless old man with cancer at the head of a nonprofit.
The FSF has largely failed to garner political/public influence to prevent the enshittification of the digital world. What is there to be gained from a putsch like this? If these people truly cared about the mission RMS set out to achieve they would realize that further dividing the minuscule libre software community (which is already co-opted by corporate interests to a large degree) will only get us further away from making a difference in the areas that actually matter.
Like damn, we only narrowly avoided a future where I can't even browse the internet without a TPM attested bootchain deemed "trustworthy" by corporations, and somehow a 71 year old cancer patient is the hottest issue in the tech world right now? Get a fucking grip.
This all just seems like a toxic power grab by people who are blinded by their narcissistic self righteousness.
Unless of course your whole point was using whataboutism to defend your hero, because you think that past achievements always outweigh any harm he may be doing.
On the other hand, it's not a criminal charge. It's about who and how leads an institution.
I've seen post-USSR academic institutions led by old directors for decades, with good scientific achievements in the background, but at the time just being there for the old merits, doing ceremonial stuff and signing the necessary minimum of papers. At the time, academia was centrally financed, so they negotiated the money with the upper ranks of the same age and background.
Their behaviour was weird to many people around: comments about ages & sex (like "women's business is the kitchen"), broad judgements, "don't be stupid kid, turn your brain on" kind of comments, making people unease. Quite likely bitter about the USSR collapse. My female friends said they were told after studying or working in academia that they should go have kind rather than try getting PhD. There was no other institution of the same kind in the city. And after all, why should YOU quit as soon as you get unprofessional treatment?
Recalling this, I can understand the discontent with Stallman and the board.
No. My point is that replacing him with people who prioritize political grandstanding over fighting for the cause at hand are just as worse if not more.
The people who gave their signature on the previous failed deplatforming attempt were numerous enough to easily fund their own FSF that is not encumbered by the influence by rms. But they didn't. They didn't because that takes actual work unlike spewing vitriol like they do here. They can only destroy but not create.
I have a lot of sympathy for teenager leading their own sex lives with each other. I have a lot less sympathy for adults that bring up the fact that teenager are entitled to a sexuality when the implication is that adults shouldn't be frowned upon for courting teenagers. Even less so for someone who had to retract his previous positions that children of all age...
EDIT: You haven't read the document clearly because it does not rely on the epstein quote and clearly marks what has been retracted
I don't know if trans women are real women but they are what they are and certainly entitled to live a good life as any other member of society and if they are only asking for being called (trans) women instead of men with dicks I fail to see how this is more of an issue that having access ramps for wheelchair in buildings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zreTvtpTeoU
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-ma...
I am pretty confident that when Stallman writes about large age gaps, he wasn't condoning predatory behaviour, but wanted to emphasize the fact that some people can be fully capable of making their own decisions even if they are in their teens. (I would go a little further to add that some people in their twenties or later can be equally vulnerable to predatory behaviour as regular sheltered teens, and it's mostly up to the upbringing they recieved) Maybe I'm too charitable in my interpretation, but "teens being fair game" is not what I understood for sure.
Leaders are held accountable.
And if he were a sociologist or anthropologist, published in the field with any reputation at all in it, who could speak on that complex dynamic over history and the interplay between environment, tradition, human biology, and social context, he might have a prayer of using reason to move the needle on the taboos in his own culture. But he's not. He's a professor in another field speaking way out on the deep end of a field he doesn't have the credentials to be taken seriously in.
We all have freedom of speech, but academic professors are expected to uphold a level of rigor that most people are not, and his writings on this topic harm his credibility and therefore, indirectly, his ability to advocate for free software.
(In fact, one change desired by is for powerful men to stop reflexively responding to allegations like these by protecting each other and being more skeptical of unsubstantiated pleas of innocence, given the statistics that we know on the nature of sexual assault allegations).
They did in another post ask for people to "Don't necessarily upvote it -- just "vouch" for it if you think it's on-topic."
By the way the report is pretty solid.
Very thorough job and if RMS was smart he would gracefully step down.
The only argument I find here against it is the question of whether someone's personal opinions should be a reason to be removed from a leadership position.
Edit: Oh wow just read the recommendations. Can't agree to most of it, sorry.
"Please think about how to treat other participants with respect, especially when you disagree with them. For instance, call them by the names they use, and refer to them using words whose meanings (as you understand them) cover those participants' stated gender identities. Please also show tolerance and respect for people who do that using different words from the words you use."
Also strongly disagree with stopping support FSF, in particular from an anonymous group.
Recommendations are quite of, despite the generally accurate and reasonable report.
Stallman, even without the stuff mentioned here, was already a pretty poor choice for messenger. His tendency to focus on semantic nitpicking gave his arguments a kind of tedious quality to them (GNU/Linux, anyone?). The outspoken political views can turn off people who are not politically aligned. And he's always given off this sort of skeevy vibe to me personally--and that sentiment has seemed to be shared by lots of other people. Long before any of the stuff being complained about here happened!
The negative influence of Stallman isn't purely theoretical anymore. We now have a couple of stories of people saying that he made them personally uncomfortable with unwanted seemingly sexual advances. Apparently, these have continued after being explicitly told by several people to knock it off. Several organizations have suspended their funding and involvement with the FSF over his reinstatement. Whatever you think of the accuracy of the accusations against him, the general perception of him is clearly negative, and to be frank, it doesn't seem like he brings any positive qualities that would make letting him go be a tough call (consider Elon Musk, who is obviously a pretty effective salesman for the future and props up Tesla's share price even as his outspoken political views are causing real problems for his companies).
Which is why we should support him even more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22299156
But he's using that right to say very public things that are very objectionable, in a space he understands poorly, and everyone else can use their same rights to call him on his nonsense. And when one is an academic, one's word carries weight outside one's area of expertise.
For all the good he did for science education, a common criticism of Carl Sagan is he was an astrophysicist (damn good one) who dabbled in neurobiology, which was well outside his area of expertise---his oft-repeated "reptile brain" theory basically doesn't match to a contemporary understanding of neuro-anatomy and didn't when he wrote Cosmos either. But because he shared it from his platform and wrote a book on the topic, "humans are a fish brain wrapped in a lizard brain wrapped in a monkey brain" is an oft-repeated untruth.
We hold those whose reputations and positions are built on knowledge more accountable to be right when they speak than we hold others. Stallman chooses to exercise his freedom of speech, and we choose to hold him accountable for his position on topics that have real consequences for people who aren't him.
If the former, having the movement spearheaded by someone who has pretty controversial views on the latter isn't really doing the movement any good. If FSF clings stubbornly to a thought-leader who people can't take seriously, they're canceling themselves.
I've seen the accusation leveraged in this topic that this anonymous piece could be FUD by Microsoft or a similar big-name software giant. I'd actually suggest the opposite: if I wanted to throw sand in the gears of free software, keeping Stallman in the leadership chair so that his opponents can point to him and say "You really want to listen to the guy who wants to sleep with your teenage daughter?" is the way I'd discredit the movement.
So that means that it's more likely that this is just backbiting on an old, sick man. E.g.: The People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
Let the old nerd die in peace with his friends.
(I'm done with this thread and this subject. Have a better one.)
You make an interesting point though: perhaps the FSF has made its bed and the best solution is to give up on it and rally behind another organization with similar goals. Maybe the 'net interprets Stallman as damage and routes around him.
If I were trans, that portion of the guideline would be enough to nope me out of participating in GNU projects. The "as you understand them" parenthetical gives cover for transphobes to intentionally misgender trans people, since they can hide behind saying that they feel it's only appropriate to use these terms for the appropriate biological sex.
But I notice that he hasn't written at length about how teenagers should be able to vote before they are 18 that I know of. The fact that he is weirdly fixated over this issue reminds us of Gabriel Matzneff and others who were basically men who wanted to be able to have sex with teenagers because they enjoy it and had no issue with having power over their younger partner.
Teenagers are already allowed to have a rich sex life, what they need is more protection from older men not less.
I mean it is enough to read the report and the quotes to understand that that man is a militant and wants better acess to teenagers for sexual purposes. The report also does a good job of explaining what's wrong with it if you care about those issues.
Otherwise, how is anyone going to determine the truth of the allegations?
If the behavior was non-criminal then the decision should be made through normal non-profit governance mechanisms. We have due process of law for a reason which is that people are innocent until proven guilty and there are the proper protections to make sure a fair trial occurs.
Another well known non-profit in the biotech space received a 20 million donation and right after that a group of people kicked out the founder citing perceived sexual innuendo in old emails that did not risen to the level of a criminal offense. The donor wanted their money back, because they had given it to support the founder and his mission, but it was too late.
Instant 100+ upvotes out of nowhere. A bunch of new accounts posting supportive messages that after checking about 20 of them had posted on the sub before and just magically appeared. Downvotes to anything asking questions.
There is one infamous mastodon troll "developer" that can't get enough of themselves and I would put money on them being involved in this, if you know you know.
Stallman is an extremely stubborn language hyper-pedantic with some fairly unconventional views and usages on any issue, not just this one. And he has 20 years of documented support for trans people. So with that context in mind, I think it makes sense to take it in good faith.
To say I find his position on this peculiar would be an understatement. But I find that on many of Stallman's positions on similar topics wrt. language. Either way, I'm reasonably confident it's not intended as a cover for transphobic bullying or the like, even though it may appear like that at a glance.
I went through all of them; there is only one that I would "vouch worthy" and should not be flagged (the one that links to stallmansupport.org), so I vouched that one. All the others I've seen should be flagged, not because they're "critical of the report", but because they're garbage.
What?!? It must be the outcome of a meticulous reading on what must be millions of words from Stallman, tolling for anything that reflects one just aspect of his outlook on life. Based on that alone one outlook it recommends he be banned from everything. There must be at least man months of work in it.
I guess there has to be, as it's a weak case. It's based on thought crimes, not actions. The difference between the two is obvious - just look at the real damage the dispute between Automattic and WPEngine has on bystanders. They are actively trying to inflict harm on each other and succeeding. Never mind the collateral damage.
No mention of the more positive aspects of his personality - like him buying coffee for the homeless he met in the street. Very little acknowledgement of the positive changes social he's wrought through man years of labor and giving the results away for free. We all have bad points. If you evaluate any of us just based on them, the scales are always going to point one way.
To me, it's an exemplar of a hit piece by someone with an single minded obsession. To make matters worse, it's an anonymous someone.
The accusation is that he made people uncomfortable, didn't do enough to change that when it was raised, and defended criminal behavior by insisting on distinctions that the authors of the report consider immaterial or harmful.
I worked for RMS/FSF briefly and I think there is something about his radical refusal to compromise on anything conceptual (to avoid conflict or misunderstanding, e.g.) that is fundamentally incompatible with running an organization. This is on display here.
So I think it's probably right for FSF and RMS to part ways, but I also think it's positive for the world for him to keep on insisting on moral clarity in his terms.
At the same time, everybody should read the whole report and decide whether they think RMS's insistence on the distinctions rejected by the authors is helpful or unhelpful. I think some of RMS's distinctions could be helpful to the cause of reducing the incidence of sexual abuse.
> gives cover for transphobes to intentionally misgender trans people
It also gives cover to people who prefer to always use gender neutral pronouns. If a transphobe is acting on their views on gender to bully people, I'd rather deal with them on a case-by-base basis, while being empathetic to everyone else who might have meant to harm.
BTW, I've met RMS in person a few years ago, and exchange emails with him every once in a while. I've found him to be very fun, and not hard to deal with if you're used to hanging out with neurodivergent people.
The fact that some countries/cultures are okay with child marriage doesn't mean that it's not absolutely disgusting.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty
On the other hand, the freedom of speech does only guarantees that you can tell what you believe openly, but never ever protects you from the consequences of your actions.
Just because some communities believe that entering puberty is enough for these things, it doesn't make it right or harmless. I can find many examples of wrong things which range from funny to atrocious but harmful at the same time.
I'm a big believer of GNU and GPL, and use the four freedoms as the blueprint of what I develop or participate in, however being right and wise in these subjects doesn't make one free from consequences of other actions one may take.
So as a result, linking to a comment telling that being 14 is enough for these things doesn't put the words into context or vindicate the person saying these things.
I may equally say that these words should be punished with a mouth pear (which I do not support in any way, honestly), but we decided that people should be punished in more honorable, better and ethical ways as a planet.
Then, just because some communities prefer mouth pear to this day, it doesn't make the device a legitimate and correct way to punish people.
So, your link to a comment doesn't provide anything in context. Just adds another person who believes in things which are heavily damaging the person who receives this treatment.
Politics is, often, about centralization and coordination of power. It's a lot more effective to change leadership at an organization with good ideas but questionable people than to split power and focus by forming a competing organization. The two resulting organizations may end up politically weaker than one organization (especially if they can't coordinate their efforts because the membership of one of them expects their org to boycott the other org for the reasons they split in the first place).
Jill Stein may, for example, have ideological purity over the Democrats but she'll never be President.
In any case, I hear the FSFE decided to split from working with the FSF when the FSF re-instated Stallman. I'd prefer to have an org with more direct influence over US law and policy, but I'll happily support FSFE since it's the closest thing I have to supporting free software as a concept without supporting continued discussion of age of consent on the side.
How do the Four Freedoms apply when it's not your computer, but a cloud service instead? FSF has struggled to find an answer because it's a philosophically different arrangement than the simpler "I should be able to control my own hardware" argument. Their dominant advice is "Don't use cloud," which is so out-of-touch it's laughable. You might as well tell people in the late 1800s to not use lightbulbs because it gives the electric company too much power over their lives.
https://i.ibb.co/RNBGcTJ/securitytrails-drewdevault.png
https://i.ibb.co/NYtTQnh/securitytrails-stallmanreport.png
So even though the report is anonymous, we can be almost certain that Drew is behind it, as he was for the previous hit piece.
That said, I read this page in its entirety and I can't help but notice how manipulative this report is. I can't tell whether this was intentional malice, a sign of subconscious bias or maybe just careless use of words, but constructs like "we can conclude that [statement that doesn't follow from what was said before]", placing whole paragraphs that are hard to disagree with but aren't related to quoted positions and are clearly meant to inflict negative emotional response to induce implicit misrepresentation (such as the one that starts with "The actors involved in pornographic films...") and stating things like "absolves the perpetrator of wrongdoing" or "consistently defends [something]" despite of that not being present in the quoted source material nor able to be inferred from it without making possibly wrong assumptions on intentions behind the words written make me doubt whether this was authored in good faith, even when the report makes some points about Stallman that I ultimately agree with.
If you want compromises, join the so-called "open-source" community, full of proprietary blobs. Thanks to Stallman, we have an example of true freedom and a compass showing where to move for it.
It does not. But it does allow for the author to set the terms of the protection of their intellectual property.
That's the kind of compromise I'm talking about. And the FS movement hasn't figured out how to recapture that lightning in a bottle for the new Cloud era. Cloud is somewhat incompatible with the hardware-ownership-based philosophy of the Four Freedoms; something new and more fundamental is needed and the calcified, old movement can't seem to find it.
And they certainly don't seem to be trying, keeping the old leadership at the cost of turning away new members (with the implication that they value historical accomplishment more than new people). I've seen multiple people suggest that the right solution is to just abandon the FS movement qua the people running it and embrace new approaches; I think there's meat on those bones. It's a longer, harder fight if the old guard is left behind, but if they won't change they can't help.
There are more charitable interpretations, but "Stallman wants to sleep with your teenage daughter" is the less-charitable one that political opponents can continue to levy against the entire movement because the FSF won't let him go.
This connection to Drew, combined with this comment from him here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41838124
and this link also posted here (the commented is downvoted to [dead]):
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/drew-chadwick-devault-ddevault...
puts some much needed light on the source of all this heat.
It is hate speech, and a form of psychological abuse, to misgender trans people when you should know better. Depending on jurisdiction, it may incur civil or criminal penalties as well.
Again, there is a reason why the Contributor Covenant, itself written by a trans woman, is the gold standard for open source codes of conduct.
One would hope you'd read the entire thing, since you appear to have been behind it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41859793
A search for all subdomains of drewdevault.com reveals rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com, which had certificates issued on 29th September 2024, a few days before stallman-report.org was registered:
https://crt.sh/?q=rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com
Helpfully, the Internet Archive monitors the Certificate Transparency logs and crawls all hostnames it finds. Which was done very soon after the certificate for rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com was logged:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault....
From this, we can see that it is an earlier copy of the document that currently exists on stallman-report.org:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240929110752/https://rms-draft...
We can now ascertain that this was a lie and an attempt to mislead, because it's clear from the accumulation of evidence that he authored it. While writing and editing this document he would have read every word, not just "most of" it.
He is also keen to congratulate himself by not-so-humbly announcing that "the depth of this report is astonishing".
Knowing that the author has engaged in such deceptive sockpuppetry casts significant doubt on the document itself. How much of it has been written to mislead the reader and misrepresent the facts?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41838124
> I've read most of the report and it's got a lot more than "last time". Speaking as someone who has done a lot of my own research on Stallman's bullshit, the depth of this report is astonishing. The allegations it makes regarding the conduct of the rest of the FSF is particularly alarming.
> I think you should at least skim it before you comment.
If that’s the case, I’m completely against ejecting him simply because he publishes nasty thoughts. I say this as a guy who lived through many kinds of abuse as a child. My opinions and almost everything are the exact opposite of his. I don’t like most of his opinions, I don’t like his humor, I disagree with most of his politics, and dealing with him in person is exceptionally unpleasant.
But the FSF is an American organization, and in America we have something close to free speech. If he’s being kicked out for expressing sick thoughts on his personal website, but not in his capacity as a member of the foundation, I believe they are making a grave and immoral mistake. They have every right to do it, but I don’t agree with taking such action.
I am no longer part of most of those communities, for both related and unrelated reasons.
"Wow guys this is such a well-written piece. I wonder who could've put this together..."
I used to enjoy reading Drew's writings, but he's become such a complete goober lately (or I've just noticed it more).
I don't know what RMS's opinions have to do with running a free software organization, nor why they necessitate his cancelling, but apparently some people are incapable of compartmentalizing. I hate how common this has become.
Does it though? If we're expected to separate the message from the messenger for Stallman but not for Drew, isn't that a double standard?
Who cares where the information came from if the information is accurate?
You hit the nail on the head
> I hate how common this has become
That's to be expected when we widen the number of people participating in the technical community. Compartmentalization is an outlier behavior.
There was a time when some folks wouldn't have batted an eye that Reiser killed his wife if his filesystem was good. The median tech community member uses a different standard these days.
Do you see yourself as a viable leader of this community?
Freedom of association lives right next to freedom of speech in the Constitution. His right to say what he wants does not impinge on my right to think that every time he opens his mouth these days he sets the movement back.
... Besides, nobody in this story (including, I surmise, you) is actually against cancelling. Avoiding closed-source software because it doesn't align with the Four Freedoms is just cancelling. Cancelling is front-and-center in Free Software's toolbox.
Stallman's credit for the creation of the GNU operating system was stolen by Linus Torvalds, and most of the community even claims that GNU isn't an operating system, essentially deleting his biggest achievement and denying him any and all recognition.
He created and championed Free Software, but that movement was replaced by the Open Source ideology, which is diametrically opposed to what he believed in. The FSF struggles to get new members and funding, while the Linux Foundation and open source projects flourish with billions of dollars from volunteers and corporations alike.
GCC and Emacs are largely irrelevant today. Stallman himself gets no respect; he's mocked and harassed by open source advocates and corporations alike.
He has expressed the isolation he is in during an interview: "I am the last survivor of a dead culture. And I don’t really belong in the world anymore. And in some ways, I feel like I ought to be dead."
What Drew DeVault did with this hit piece is despicable. He wanted to shame and bully the FSF board into removing Stallman and resigning so his people can take over and push for his deranged idea of 'free software.'
This distinction is also made by the law in the USA, so this quote merely reflects USA law.
You can disagree with this quote and even find it gross, but to claim this quote aims to normalize CSAM is a blatant lie.
>Who cares where the information came from if the information is accurate?
It isn't. The article opens up by claiming that Stallman has a political agenda regarding the normalization of child sexual abuse which is a blatant lie. He never had an agenda regarding this, just a blog where he posted his terrible and tone-deaf opinions.
He deliberately framed his quotes in such a way to lead readers into a conclusion that fits his own political agenda.
Stallman, his writing, and his org moved the needle on the way software was done; that doesn't imply they get to dictate how software is done. But nowadays, I question their capacity to move the needle.
Even if you have to rent one from a hosting company. There are a whole lot more "server rental" companies than "native cloud" companies - there's good competition in that space without lock-in. You still have 80% of the benefits even if the server isn't in your physical building.
I think it was DHH who said it's completely incredible that these cloud companies managed to make PROGRAMMERS scared of COMPUTERS.
People who just want to write apps or services look at a list like this (https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/you-connect-new-comput...) and would gladly hand some or all of that off to a third-party.
It's the same thing: personal choice intended to influence the shape of the world.
If the goal was to change behavior... Behavior refuses to change.
There are screenshots from Drews live streams which show his browser history/bookmarks which show links to 4ch board for cartoon drawings of lewd/nude children which make this all the more sickening. No wonder Drew loves his "research" so much.
A post from that thread, linked below, is currently highlighted on that site's front page with the title "An open letter libeling Richard Stallman as a pedophile was probably written by Drew DeVault, a progressive open-source developer who has 10 years of history posting lolicon on reddit":
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/drew-chadwick-devault-ddevault...
It describes various of Drew's online habits over the years, including sharing artwork of prepubescent children in swimsuits. Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable non-pedophilic reason for this, and I do hope Drew will return to the comments here once more to explain.
Either way, with this in mind, it places this section of Drew's report in a rather different context:
https://stallman-report.org/#support-for-the-possession-of-c...
[0] = https://web.archive.org/web/20131007121950/http://www.reddit... (specifically “Kaname [Madoka] in her swimsuit”. I assume the rules regarding linking to what is legally considered drawn CSAM is rather harsh, so for those who need proof of said claims Pixiv utilizes an ID string on every URL, and the “Sauce” hyperlink will direct you to it.
[1] “I'm of the opinion that 14 year old girls should be required to have an IUD installed. Ten years of contraception that requires a visit to the doctor to remove prematurely.” - https://web.archive.org/web/20130523180641/http://www.reddit...
[0] = https://web.archive.org/web/20131007121950/http://www.reddit... (specifically “Kaname [Madoka] in her swimsuit”. I assume the rules regarding linking to what is legally considered drawn CSAM is rather harsh, so for those who need proof of said claims Pixiv utilizes an ID string on every URL, and the “Sauce” hyperlink will direct you to it.
[1] “I'm of the opinion that 14 year old girls should be required to have an IUD installed. Ten years of contraception that requires a visit to the doctor to remove prematurely.” - https://web.archive.org/web/20130523180641/http://www.reddit...
It does strengthen proprietary software. It also strengthens everyone else's software. It's the rising tide that floats all boats.
I don't think you actually read it then, because a significant portion of it is about his untoward behavior (as a boss, to random women at conferences, as a Voting Member, etc.)
> But the FSF is an American organization, and in America we have something close to free speech.
Free speech has absolutely nothing to do with this (as you note, the foundation has every right to get rid of him because of his abhorrent views). You don't generally want advocates for child sex abuse representing your foundation, regardless of what sort of foundation it is.
Character assassination involves lies. The majority of this is just "here's a collection of absolutely indefensible shit RMS said, in his own words".
The report's author(s) are advocating for removing RMS from positions of influence and authority from the free software community because he's advocating for child sex abuse and bestiality, harasses women, and is a shitty human being.
Pretending that anyone ever has been jettisoned from their position or public life for "discussing" something - or that that's what's happening here - is insanely disingenuous.
It works fine for trivial pieces of code that no one cares about. But for bigger pieces of software, you're donating your time to Amazon, Microsoft and Palantir. You're volunteering for them. Why would you do that? If they want you to work for them they should pay you. If not for your wallet's sake then for the sake of hurting bad companies.
Copyleft is easy to comply with. Being scared of copyleft is like being scared of servers (which most programmers are according to DHH!).
“I'm of the opinion that 14 year old girls should be required to have an IUD installed. Ten years of contraception that requires a visit to the doctor to remove prematurely.” - https://web.archive.org/web/20130523180641/http://www.reddit...
Because "everyone" means everyone. Ask the OpenSSL developers why they do what they do.
> Being scared of copyleft is like being scared of servers (which most programmers are according to DHH!).
... Yep, you got it.
One can only hope Drews local law enforcement find a reason to seize all his computer equipment and do a forensic investigation.
Here is an interesting find from a comment 12 years ago made by Drew on reddit (https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/todayilearned/comments/udlwf/...): "What an ass, you don't have to call him out in the middle of a (mostly) unrelated post. I pity pedophiles - you can't control what turns you on, and they happen to be turned on by something illegal. It's a dick move to try and bring it up and shame him publicly."
Definitely needs his hard drives searching by authorities.
This is your right, just like choosing the software. However, trying to force everybody to stop supporting FSF or to cancel Stallman without a fair process is very different and wrong.
But its fundamentally compatible with keeping free software free. That is what is important - an unwavering adherance to the core mission.
> We have several uncorroborated testimonies of women, including minors, being overtly sexualized during this routine, some without consent. In the course of our research we discovered that one of these routines was recorded, in which Stallman brings a 13 year-old girl on stage and makes sexually suggestive remarks about her in front of a crowd at FKFT 2008 in Barcelona.
> some without consent
> In the course of our research we discovered that one of these routines was recorded
Far out if they reach any harder they'll need a ladder and a safety harness!
There is nothing new in this report.
Ethical Source are attempting a hostile takeover of the FSF and now is the perfect time to release this as there is an FSF board vote happening soon.
They're scared of building their house on someone else's land.
Your hit piece is dishonest, disingenuous and is a clear attempt at a hostile takeover of the FSF. You should feel shame for what you are doing here.
If it were an honest report you would all attach your names to it but instead you operate in the dark.
