John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

And I agree that nobody other than a professional personally evaluating him should diagnose him with ASD (or anything), but he displays obvious traits of BAP (broad autism phenotype, subclinical ASD) – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26537443 – and that's not a "diagnosis" because BAP is by definition not a diagnosis.

Nevertheless, he clearly and obviously displays so many symptoms from that spectrum that it would only be charitable to treat his communications under the assumptions that there's something there.

Doing so makes it easier to excuse Stallman's behavior and demonize his critics by implying their only motivation is hatred of conventionally unattractive and neurodivergent people - an argument designed to strongly resonate emotionally with the tech community and serve as a thought terminating cliche.

It's ironically exactly the sort of bad faith strategy they constantly accuse "the SJWs" of partaking in.

Thank you for putting it so clearly.

None of the public judgements about RMS are about anything technical, anything about free software, or anything that touch on him running the FSF. He voiced an unfashionable opinion on sex and the laws about sex.

This is a political act to blacklist a man for his political opinions from work in a profession that he is qualified for.

This is not just about being judged, it's about being judged and executed for your opinions. The judges and the juries have already handed out their verdict and will personally hand out the punishment, and if you dare question it you'll likely be next on the list. For example, I've seen that those who sided against RMS create a script to block those who signed the petition in his support. It's infuriating, it's a childish behavior that doesn't help anyone, it serves only to further polarize and radicalize the two sides, and further reduces the room for discussion. If there even was room left, that is. [1]

This is not an ecosystem where people are able to express their ideas. There is either black or white. You are either with us or against us. And if you express moderate opinions you risk angering both sides, and good luck with that.

You have to carefully weight every single word, because all it takes is for a single person to take issue with your comment enough to signal it to the cancel culture mob on Twitter to mobilize a horde of vocal complainers with plenty of spare time that will do everything they can to make you regret ever typing it out, either now or in the future. It's outright barbaric behavior from both sides that has been seen time and time again in the last years.

Do you honestly consider this "freedom of speech"?

---

[1] As another commenter points out, this kind of stuff comes from both sides. The given example was just fresh in my mind.

You know who else thinks this way? Many repressive countries such as those who control how women / minorities / etc behave in public. It's essentially mob pressure and destroys genuine freedom of speech.

You're basically expressing a threat that will be used against people who openly do not agree with the majority.

I disagree, it's all very much overblown.

[edit] this is a genuine question. I've seen him write edgy things but am not aware of any harm he's done to others.

Discounting something as "a good thing once" sounds weird to me: many things require a huge amount of work to carry off, so "once" here can encompass dedicating someone's life work for decades, just for that one thing. (Sorry for going off topic, as I'm not commenting either way on your point, just on this phrase.)

Come on: this is a massive trivialisation of RMS's achievements. I have often disagreed with him but his contributions to OSS, and to the wider foundations of modern software and software development, are huge and are the product of decades of devotion - of consistent, motivated effort - from him.

Like it or not, all of us who work in software - even those of us who aren't necessarily strong advocates of free software - benefit from RMS's work.

I've also got bad news for you: we all exhibit _patterns_ of bad behaviour. Fortunately, we are all equipped with the capacity to change even long ingrained habits and patterns.

(To be clear: I am in no way defending any bad behaviour from RMS towards other people, or suggesting that he shouldn't change that behaviour.)

This is one glaring trivialization. RMS had "once" spent decades of hard work from which we all benefit greatly.

This is such bullshit. There is no pattern of bad behaviour. There are some opinions that are considered controversial by mere fact of containing his actual thoughts on sensitive subjects rather than phrases repeated verbatim from the "currently allowed viewpoints" book. His views are not even contrary, they are just phrased in a way that allows dialogue of the subject. This is enough for the pure evil villains like Sarah Mei to build up her online persona by misattribution, lying and fabricating information crafted in a way that directs a mindless mob to online-lynch the man that in his life has done more for the freedom of that mob's members than anyone else alive. It is despicable. If anything deserves to be "cancelled" it is Sarah Mei's opinions on the subject.

The collective stupidity of the mob in question is completely beside the point as well as the actual content of Stallman's opinions which seem not to matter to anyone. This story really has one villain only and that person is not Richard Stallman.

Another way is to lead by example with unrelenting commitment and drive.

By all accounts, especially for recent decades, RMS had been a not-so-much-great decision maker and his resignation from FSF should have marked the end of the era no matter how you feel about that. Instead FSF chose to bring him back. Seriously, if out of the free software movement there were no decision maker better than RMS, then it is basically doomed by now. I don't feel so.

Care to define what that skillset is? Leadership requires all sorts of skills and some of the most effective leaders I've seen share very little in common.

If we accept this process as valid just because we agree with the outcome, it is going to blow up right in our face.

I disagree. I think FSF is/was until recently the strongest ever.

Free Software has advanced greatly in the past 20 years, that’s not entirely due to FSF, but in part. I don’t think RMS is the singular force behind FSF but I don’t think it’s correct to say that FSF sucks or that it’s sucked because of RMS.

Then why didn't these women report him to the whoever competent authorities at MIT? Or to the police if the crime is serious enough? Why are they signing an open letter on the internet instead?

Please don't parrot unfounded heresy.

This is censorship. It's why I'm posting anonymously for the first time in a long time.

> there has never been a time where you can just blurt out a communication and have it be "accepted" by society

We're in a new era where algorithms amplify rage and "mobs" are a composite of real people, anonymous users, and bots. You can't fight against it, and there's no due process or forgiveness.

I agree that you are accountable for the things you say. Unfortunately, people are attempting to hold RMS accountable for things he did not say. This situation is the result of willful misinterpretation and dishonest and sensationalist media reporting.

The principle of charity must be applied, particularly with people on the Autism spectrum, who aren't necessarily tuned to the sensibilities of society around them.

> Yes, you can be killed for the communications you make...

> Yes, you will be cancelled if your joke is taken out of context...

I guess the question here is whether anything can be done to change this. After all, the society has progressed to the point where it has proclaimed freedom of thought / conscience to be an important value, and, ostensibly, has stopped discriminating on religious grounds. There's no significant difference, in my opinion, between writing something in a textarea and collectively praying to a god or proselytizing on the streets.

Or do click "reply", because there are billions of people out there and some may take offense, but who cares? Billions of people don't. You can delete them right back, and billions of people will keep not caring.

That textarea only gives you a tiny bit of power and it gives everyone else the same tiny bit of power, so why should you fear their power more than they should fear yours?

Just for the purpose of debating let me bring up my (very unpopular) point of view.

I have always thought that anyone should be able to say anything and not have legal consequences (ex: go to prison, pay a fine).

Notice that this statement covers all scenarios as long as the person involved "only speaks" (or publishes). In other words, the moment he does something illegal, then he should (in my opinion) be judged according to the rules of the society he lives in.

Now... I have never in my live encountered one single person that agrees 100% with me in that regard. They always come up with exceptions, such as these ones:

1) An author writes a book about having sex with minors.

2) A general tells one of his soldiers to shoot a prisoner.

3) My neighbor starts publishing ads on the local newspaper falsely accusing me of being a drug dealer.

These are my responses:

1) As long as we don't catch him having sex with minors, that's ok with me. We should encourage all types of debates, even those (specially those!) we are not comfortable with. In the worst case, each one will walk home thinking the other side is wrong; in the best case, maybe we will learn something from each other (maybe we can better understand how the brain of that author works and how we can help him). Simply banning a taboo topic won't make it disappear from society... openly discussing the topic will (in my opinion) be a better long term solution for all.

2) In this case the general is not just "saying" something. Due to the chain of command, the soldier can end up imprisoned or dead if he doesn't comply. I would still defend the right for some random person to publicly state that "we should kill all xxx", not because I agree with him, but because we should be able to discuss the reasons and try to convince him to do otherwise.

3) This is the most tricky one. I still think my neighbor should be able to do that because I expect others who read the newspaper ad to fact check his claims instead of blindly believe them. No one I have ever met agrees with me on this one... and I think that is because people always consider others to be "dumber" than themselves and thus need to be protected from non curated news in case they end up believing them. I really think this is not the case: I never believe anything I read on the newspaper (or online) until I get confirmation from several places and I know most people do the same, no matter how others like to "look down" at "average Joe".

I enjoy discussing the limits of "freedom of speech/ideas". Let me know what you (or any other) think :)

The speed and the scale at which “a random throwaway comment to a friend” can be taken out of context and used to ruin a person’s life are pretty new

We don't let internet mobs run courts yet we allow them to ruin people's lives for some reason.

In Germany for one, there is no such thing as freedom of speech, but rather "freedom of opinion". Practically that means that if you want to say something that someone else is not going to like, you have to a) take care not to bring up any facts (e.g. say that someone touched you inappropriately), because as soon as you do that you have to either provide a proof or face slander suit b) still not to cross the line when your opinion can be considered offensive. This doesn't leave a lot of space for free speech. This is not to mention a list of forbidden opinions and symbols for which you will face repercussions from the state itself.

Don't want to argue which is the right way, I just mean that "American freedom of speech" is a real thing.

And this is over - and I can't BELIEVE this still has to be said even here - his words being twisted COMPLETELY out of context.

Smh at this community for tolerating comments like yours.

I was seduced by my parents to join a Judo club so I could stand up to myself ( this works wonders ).

Last year, I confronted a new millenial neighbour of mine repeatedly on her behaviour of biking on the sidewalk. The biggest problem was she was doing blind corners as well. There are small children here playing, we have elderly with walking aids. It was dangerous.

She called the police on me.

You can disagree without coming down to this.

Besides much of what RMS is saying and doing that makes him stick out and he gets harassed over is because of him being neuroatypical.

The idea is they ask someone whether they want to do it, they say yes, and they do it. And they don't really see the harm there. Everyone's happy, right?

But, children lack the knowledge to understand what it is they are asking. Children might also agree to things they shouldn't because they want attention, even if it is bad for them, and hurts them.

Teenagers might be better off but they're hormone propelled and may make mistakes they really shouldn't. There are power imbalances too where someone feels they should do something they really don't want to do.

To be clear, I'm not for criminalizing sex where a small age gap is involved. Throwing teenagers in prison for having sex with each other is counter-productive and harmful. There are better ways to tackle that. The same applies to sexting.

But, the burden which would have to be met for an adult to be involved is so high, so risky, and so convoluted that it isn't worth it in practice. Can a judge really make the right call all the time there? Is it worth it?

By the way, he has never tweeted his theoretical support for statutory rape. I don't think he even has a twitter account. He made some comments on an obscure personal blog over a couple of decades. Someone went out of their way to dig it out after he appeared in the news.

Also, now we know that rms has 'bad book' where he puts people with children.

1. 'skeptical that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.’ stallman's own archives 2006-mar-jun I note that children are incapable of consenting. That’s what the age of consent means.

2. 'end censorship of “child pornography”’. Stallman's archives 2012-jul-oct.html Notice use of “quotes” to down play what is actually being requested.

3. 'gentle expressions of attraction’ Stallman's archives 2012-jul-oct.html Condoning a variant of the wolf-whistle. Unless one’s talking to one’s lover, ‘gentle invitations for sex’ by a stranger is grooming (be it child or of-age).

4. Defends someone charged with ‘"sexual assault" on a "child" after a session with a sex worker of age 16.’ stallman's archives 2018-jul-oct Notice the quoting here, implying the child is not a child. ‘The article refers to the sex worker as a "child", but that is not so. Elsewhere it has been published that she is 16 years old. That is late adolescence, not childhood.’ No, they are a child, that’s what the ages of majority and consent mean.

5. The ‘St Ignatius’ ‘EMACS virgins’ non-joke. ‘The commenter writes about seeing the routine when she was only 15, and how RMS singled her out several times during that performance: He actually pointed to me in the back and proclaimed, into the mic, "A GIRL!" causing the audience to turn and look. Mortifying. Then he proceeded to gesture toward me every time he referred to "EMACS Virgins." (I cannot believe that he is still doing the same talk 10+ years later.)’ No wonder women want nothing to do with him.

6. A business card that is completely repelling image on oreilly

7. He knows those cards are inappropriate. He broke the code of conduct he helped author. wiredferret's twitter feed.

8. I understand he’s tried to circumvent such codes of conduct by asking women to meet him outside of the conference venue. _sagesharp_'s twitter feed.

9. He doesn’t acknowledge the few women he has worked with ‘I don’t have any experience working with women in programming projects; I don’t think that any volunteered to work on Emacs or GCC.’ Completely ignoring Sandra Loosemore, who is a coauthor, with him, of the Glibc manual. Sandra was involved with LISP standardization, so I would be surprised if he was unaware of her involvement there. As you well know, she has worked significantly on GCC, GCC has several other women contributors, but too few for complacency.

10. ‘My first interaction with RMS was at a hacker con at 19. He asked my name, I gave it, whether I went to MIT (I had an MIT shirt on), and after confirmation I did, asked me on a date. I said no. That was our entire conversation.’ corbett's twitter feed. This is but one of many reports of utterly inappropriate social interactions.

Why so much speculation? He's actually saying the opposite.

This is an ideal held by many that we should strive toward. We may never achieve it in our lifetimes, but it’s still healthy to have a common goal we all work toward.

It’s disheartening if I just say “fuck it, we’re hosed, so what’s the point.”

However, you can't deny that Copyleft (the legal hack that guarantees that source code will stay open) was his invention. I am not aware of anyone else thinking this way in the timeframe he first put his idea in public.

FTFY

Why not credit GPL or RMS for the Linux success over BSD ? There are many projects using BSD but still a giant number of companies and projects still use the "evil, cancerous" GPL project when they could use BSD and be selfish.

Maybe open source will win over free software but that this will not prove the free software movement wrong, will prove that money and greed will win as always.

The other difference between Linus and RMS is that RMS is the GPL guy and many people on HN hate GPL with a passion and will spread FUD about the license any chance they get, I think this RMS controversy is fueled by the GPL/free software hate.

For what specific issue RMS did not apologized yet? Let us know the issue, why does he need to apologize for that specific one and why if there is no apology for that issue should he be canceled from his own project?

If it impacts his effectiveness in leading the FSF, then it absolutely does matter.

If he's abrasive, then nobody will want to work with him, and by extension people won't want to work with the FSF.

We shouldn't have to play this politically-correct bullshit game of tiptoe: Richard Stallman's social skills are shit, and saying that he's not well suited to a people-facing role is not some attack on him.

>conforming to someone else's views should not be a necessity to work in your chosen field.

It sounds like you don't know the difference between bootlicking and subtlety. While the face of the FSF being unyielding on Free Software is generally good, the face of the FSF being unyielding on,say, nosefucking with plants is less so.

Sometimes we don’t have pretty choices, and doing something we are fully entitled to do has adverse consequences regardless. I’m wondering if RMS, while being in his right, ended up avoidably sabotaging his own cause.

Not breaking the law is the bare knuckle minimum standard that we expect. Imagine going to a job interview and when asked about your achievements you say "well, I didn't break any laws".

But it also answers my question, and it sounds like perhaps FSF is itself not stoked to have him back.

A completely non-representative grep through copyright information indicates that about two-thirds of the GPL-licensed packages on my Debian system have the "or any later version" clause.

There is still hope at some organization level, if they have strong constitutions, for example Debian has called for a vote among their members and is not threatening, officially, "dissident" people of being ostracized. Maybe "individually" some members will fall in that trap against others (in quote because the individual aspect will often not just be them avoiding intetaction, but them actively trying by openly or covertly pressuring everybody to prevent interactions between others, like we see here)

The sad part is that this guerilla is highly assymetrical. Benevolent and correctly functioning adults won't even try to cancel the cancellers, or to make transitive lists of who can not be talked to anymore, because how would that be better than what they are doing? Of course some declaring support for cancelled people will attempt a counter boycott but their stance is not reasonable and they should be ignored as well on this point.

Could you please share a link to the Twitter talk about "what to do with the list of signatories"?

Different companies would choose which list to use according to their own politics and culture.

Totally hypothetical: Coinbase and Google will probably turn rms-open-letter into a denylist. Twitter will do the opposite.

This is all conjecture, but I could see it happening. It's why I feel I shouldn't sign.

Edit: it seems some people are not interested in this data

* https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

I think a lot of it is echo: someone creates an anonymous account to say something because they think they're at risk, people see it and think that they're at risk too and repeat that and in the end you have a lot of people worrying about something that practically does not happen.

lol