SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Free software advocates seek removal of Richard Stallman and entire FSF board:
Richard Stallman's return to the Free Software Foundation's board of directors has drawn condemnation from many people in the free software community. An open letter signed by hundreds of people today called for Stallman to be removed again and for the FSF's entire board to resign.
The open letter said:
Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in the free software community for a long time. He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety. These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities. With his recent reinstatement to the Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation, we call for the entire Board of the FSF to step down and for RMS to be removed from all leadership positions.
Previously:
Richard Stallman Rejoins Free Software Foundation Board of Directors
Richard M. Stallman Resigns
Richard Stallman Deserved to be Fired, Says Fired GNU Hurd Maintainer
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DECbot on Friday March 26 2021, @07:43PM (3 children)
I respect that you want to make your own judgement on RMS. I think your right on to ask why would you adopt a license that offers less protection to you, the developer, because of the actions of a eccentric old dude that thinks (1) source code should be accessible to developers and users freely and (2) open source software should not be used to make corporations rich at the developer's expense (3) rape might not be rape depending on what part of the world you might happen to be in at that moment. This is the specific problem I have with woke culture to disregard the advancement of society because of the faults of the individuals invoking the change. GPL is good for protecting open source and making sure the license is enforceable and keeping the open source code open. It is like raising a child--you can love your kid but hate that he is cheating on tests. Isolate the vision and the contribution from the faults of the induvial. Use the licenses that best protects the vision you have for your code. You are protecting your interests. Now, if there is a similar license that provides equal protection but is not FSF, use it to protest the council/RMS. Yes, this might be pragmatic way of looking at it--but as the old saying goes, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Also, the GPL may have been a vision from RMS, but he did not create and enforce the GPL by himself. A lot of resources were put into the GPL to ensure it is enforceable and respected by the industry. RMS might be a liability to the FSF but that doesn't make other people's contributions to the GPL any less important.
The point being, hypothetically, even if all the slurs are true and RMS is a dirtbag in a degree we never considered and the FSF is propping him up for whatever reason they have, does that make the GPL a less effective license? Nope. However, it may result in less contributions to the FSF which reduces access to competent lawyers able to provide successful protection of the GPL in court. Allowing corporations to chip away at the GPL's protection is one reason why you might want to shop around for a different FOSS/FLOSS license.
My personal opinion RMS is a details oriented guy that makes him perfect to discuss the minutiae of a code implementation or legal technicalities but not suitable for the mouthpiece directed towards main stream media or even to be a target for MSM to eavesdrop on. Case in point, the Epstein discussions. The media is looking for 30-second sound bites to attract eyeballs and clicks, not a lecture on why it is wrong but in this case it might be right because it depends type of arguments. So why would the FSF ask RMS to come back? FSF may still need RMS to look critically at proposals from large corporations to ensure the goals and ideals of the FSF are protected and to articulate why and take the heat for when a proposal is rejected. Apparently when he left the FSF, they did not have a replacement ready and no volunteers to take it. He might have done creepy things, and it might have been more acceptable back in the day. I have no clue, but that has no specific bearing on my project's software license. However, there are several cases where the GPL was protected in a courtroom, which does have merit to why I might consider the GPL. I haven't read the history to determine if RMS was directly involved in license enforcement or if he just built the foundation that made it possible to defend the license. Though the actions of the FSF makes it appear the FSF still needs RMS to advocate the GPL. That makes me question what will happen to the FSF and the GPL when RMS is done with the FSF for one reason or another and does having RMS back in the FSF reduce the ability of the FSF to protect the GPL? Hopefully the FSF has a fall back plan like the Linux Foundation has with Linus, and it is all figured out--but who knows since I haven't seen an "RMS got hit by a bus" plan like what the Linux Foundation has with Linus. Though realistically, their plan might be more appropriately named "The media found RMS saying something indefensible" plan. That all said, if you are shopping for a FLOSS license for your code, is there a license and foundation that protects FLOSS projects as well as the GPL and FSF does with success track record of license enforcement? I'll be blunt, I'm ignorant in this matter, so I don't know of one. Thus I question the motives of people who are advocating a different license because of the out of context and weird inappropriate statements made by RMS.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @12:13AM
The FSF has been without RMS for more than a year. They did survive, and they eventually appointed a boss, though as a donor, I refrained from my usual levels of support, in anticipation that the Woke Mob were about to get their filthy hands on the precious.
So they were operating without RMS, but they got him back on the board of directors. Usually, one appoints board members that can bring in donations, either directly or through connections. With RMS' history as founder, there is a chance that 1) he personally, or through GNU Inc., controlled trademarks that required the FSF to stay on good terms with him or 2) has good friends on the BoD that wanted him back.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @10:18PM (1 child)
A license that you need lawyers to defend, like the GPL, or a license that you don’t need to deft, like BSD or MIT?
Code you have to consult a lawyer for before and after using, or code that you can just use?
Gee, that’s an easy one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28 2021, @03:06AM
Waaa! Waaaaah! Legal told me I couldn't use this awesome code because it had a stinking GPL! Instead we have to negotiate a proper site license so the author gets paid what her code is worth! Waaaah!