October 14th, 2024 Richard Stallman (aka “RMS”) is the founder of GNU and the Free Software Foundation and present-day voting member of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) board of directors and “Chief GNUisance” of the GNU project. He is responsible for innumerable contributions to the free software movement, setting its guiding principles, organizing political action, and directly contributing to a flourishing free software ecosystem. The majority of Stallman’s political activity has been of priceless value to society at large.
You might want to remember that he has done more to advance open source software than perhaps any other person on this planet. You don’t get to take away someone’s achievements just because you don’t like them…
Just FYI, penned by Stallman himself no less: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
I don’t see anyone trying to take away his achievement. The report and most commenters even recognize his contribution.
Also this goes more deeply than “not liking them”, he has some morally reprehensible views. I admit I haven’t read the whole report, but I have seen some of the things it touches on in the past and it’s pretty damning.
Stallman earned his position of influence as a voting board member through his software-related achievements, not his sexual attitudes. Removing him for the latter absolutely WOULD take away from those achievements. Paying lip service in the report doesn’t change that. In another era when homosexuality was illegal, Alan Turing was removed from his position in British intelligence because of being gay. The two situations aren’t identical, but they don’t have to be. The point is that they both earned their positions, and taking away what they earned because of unrelated moral disapproval is wrong. This isn’t a defense of any of Stallman’s attitudes - I’m saying no such defense is necessary or relevant.
I think, this is what contemporary cancel culture usually tries to do.
I also think, that this is wrong on most occasions. Maybe sometimes possible damage warrants cancelling someone, I don’t know
I agree. Uproars like this reflect an irrational fear that rewarding someone for one reason also rewards everything else about them, including stuff we don’t approve of. We see a ton of crowd-sourced demonization nowadays. Yes, you cured cancer but you also liked the wrong tweets, so no Nobel Prize for you, spawn of Satan.
I gave him credit for that while also saying we shouldn’t platform him or give him attention until and unless he recants and / or apologizes. Just like the report says.
Just curious what, precisely, you would expect him to recant or apologise for?
See the report and take your pick.
From what? I’m not sure what in the report you think needs apologising for. Did you actually read the report? Is there a sentence you can quote and say “he needs to apologise for this”?
I believe you’re arguing in bad faith because the report makes it obvious what objectionable statements were made. Bye!
I disagree. The report claims there are disagreeable statements but when you actually look at the quotes of what Stallman said, they don’t match the claims or conclusions of the report.
This is why I’m asking if you can actually quote something Stallman said.
I don’t think you’ve actually read the report.
I skimmed the first handful of alleged harmful statements on two topics before deciding I wouldn’t benefit from reading the whole thing.