No need to "go" anywhere - thanks to RMS, you have got the freedoms promised available to you like any other user. If you don't like him, your freedom allows you to do what you want with the software (as long as you respect the terms of the license).

> What about people that love free software, but are appalled that RMS was reappointed to the board. Where should we go?

Why do you have to go anywhere? If all the evidence you have against someone is "they expressed an opinion I didn't like" I suggest, then, the problem isn't them.

But the FSF's raison d'être is to have an opinion.

It's a strongly principled organization that exists to advocate for the things it believes.

In the context of someone joining a board of an organization like that, their expressed opinions absolutely matter.

> But the FSF's raison d'être is to have an opinion.

Sure, but not an opinion on every issue in the world - their mission has always been to promote the user's freedom to use and modify software as the user sees fit. Other issues, whether important or not, may not be relevant to preserving software freedoms.

> It's a strongly principled organization that exists to advocate for the things it believes.

Correct, so why is everyone up in arms when they are refusing to advocate for things that are not of interest to them?

> In the context of someone joining a board of an organization like that, their expressed opinions absolutely matter.

Only as far as the organisation's mission statement. I would be (rightly) kicked out of my organisation should I publicly mobilise a mob against my employer for the company's lack of interest in abused puppies at the SPCA.

People disagreeing with RMS's expressed opinions on (for example) what constitutes a legal age of consent disqualify themselves as leadership material for an organisation committed to software freedoms.

The people who support software freedoms know where to go to get lectures on legal age of consent should they want to hear it. Injecting unrelated political ideology into a group committed to software freedoms is as welcome as posting SPAM for ED to a mailing list for cryptography.

> Correct, so why is everyone up in arms when they are refusing to advocate for things that are not of interest to them?

“Everyone” is not.

Of the people up in arms, some (including at least one FSF board member who resigned, and many individuals and entities that contribute—or did until recently—to the FSF and it's projects) are part of the “they” and clearly so have an interest.

And others are just on the outside advocating for things they care about, just as vociferously as FSF partisans do (and no more—though also no less—annoyingly to people who aren't concerned about the same issues.)

What a juvenile argument. I couldn't care less about Stallman, he can express whatever he likes. But the consequences of that are that he and the FSF are now a detriment to the free software movement.

Way I remember it, mathematics has accepted contributions from any walks of life over its history. “Mathematics is so beautiful to transcend whole societies and be for the ages.” Or something. More practically, mathematics is just so hard that people who are willing to spend significant time with it are rare. People who find significant mathematical ideas are very much more rare. For these reasons, it’s a practical thing to accept mathematical contributions from anyone regardless of their other proclivities.

Writing good software is hard. I’d recon it’s similar to mathematics in difficulty often. It’s worth it to consider someone can both be awful in other factors of their life but still make meaningful contributions to society through things like math or software. It helps that he’s always willing to show you his code for audit purposes.

Also, I’d add that a feeling of having contributed something meaningful to the world is something like a basic human need. You won’t die if you’re fed, sheltered, and have access to clean water. But if that’s literally all you do in a day you will soon be fiddling for something to do.

So instead of rushing to exclude people from society, society needs to provide people enough room to be themselves to keep from dangerous fiddling.

Further, forgiveness is a more critical tool to the forgiver than the forgiven. To forgive a grievance isn’t to forget it. It’s to put an end to the part of your resources devoted to punishing your opponent or thinking ill. That frees up those resources for more positive uses. The forgiven never needed to expend resources to earn your forgiveness and thus doesn’t have the same resource commitments - hence forgiveness offers less to the forgiven than the forgiver.

In this situation forgiveness has has offered a board seat to the forgiven, which is something of considerable value.

I can confidently say I've devoted zero resources to punishing Stallman, other than a few comments on this thread. Yet his benefit from the board's forgiveness is quite clearly large.

There's a big difference between excluding someone from society or even contributing to a project, and appointing them to the board.

The reason that mathematical contributions are accepted from anyone regardless of other proclivities, is not because the people who find significant mathematical ideas are very rare. While that is true, the reason that their contributions are accepted is that it doesn't matter who the person is, or what they do, or anything. It only matters if what they came up with is true.

To reject a completely correct mathematical concept because it was contributed by an awful person--even the worst person in history--would be madness, and any attempts to suppress or disenfranchise the work of "inconvenient contributors" indicates that you're not actually pursuing mathematics, but engaging in political warfare.

And sufficiently fulfilling a software requirement is like being mathematically correct if not actually correct.

But I fear you’re being over constrained by this specification. My larger point is it’s important, very, to not draw too many lines and wind up with a “polite party” of 0.

> And sufficiently fulfilling a software requirement is like being mathematically correct if not actually correct.

Absolutely.

> But I fear you’re being over constrained by this specification. My larger point is it’s important, very, to not draw too many lines and wind up with a “polite party” of 0.

I'm not sure I understand where we disagree. Or I'm missing what you are getting at with this paragraph, my apologies. I think contributions to mathematics should be open to anyone, everyone, and everything.

The FSF isn’t a mathematical enterprise dropping out nuggets of code whose value is unquestionable, like pure mathematical truths - it’s a lobbying organization. And for a lobbying organization both 1) credibility and 2) having supportable goals matter.

If you believe there is value in campaigning for increased freedom for users of software, then you might benefit from the FSF having concrete campaign goals and the ability to be taken seriously.

Inviting RMS back to the board does not help them in that regard.

Your ability to benefit from the software produced by RMS has no dependency on his being elevated to a seat on the board of an organization whose opinion might be sought, say, if congress were debating laws mandating access to source code of voting machines.

Something I learned. Try to hold the opposing thoughts and feelings in your head together at the same time. Hold gratitude at RMS for founding the FSF and all that has come from that, along with whatever anger you have at his other opinions. Meditate on that conflict. Try to accept that these come from the same person. I've found this to be an effective way to overcome splitting (psychology reference, good concept with poor examples about mommy IMHO).

RMS will always be the founder of the FSF. Nobody can take that away from him. He should mint a commemorative NFT.

But that doesn’t entitle him to a seat on the board for all time regardless of how his presence there might affect how the FSF is perceived.

There’s no conflict there at all. That the FSF lacks the imagination to conceive of a way forward without RMS on the board definitely supports the OP argument that free software has a leadership development problem and lacks a vision of any path forward that will tangibly advance ‘freedom’ for software users.

I can be happy that the FSF exists, admire a number of the goals RMS has strived towards, and still be aghast and horrified by RMS's lack of personal boundaries[1], lack of respect for women[1], and specific pieces of writing that lived on his site for decades that were in favour of child abuse.

I'm not sure how meditating on it is supposed to negate the latter. Nor how that is supposed to provide a space in which software is free of the shackles of the misogyny of the popular.

[1]: Literally just listen to the women who have had to work along side him on the MIT campus for decades. The fact that it was a known fact in the whisper network on campus and that they had developed tactics for "dealing with it" shows you pretty much everything you need to know.

>> Literally just listen to the women who have had to work along side him on the MIT campus for decades.

I would like to listen to what they have to say. This is the first I'm hearing of this, and I've been following RMS and the FSF since their inception. The term "dealing with it" is too vague - are we talking sexual assault, sexual harassment, or RMS being difficult to work with? These are dramatically different scenarios yet they all require a means for "dealing with it."

I'm taking you to task because you're now crossing the line from things RMS has said to things he may have done. If you're going to accuse RMS of sexual harassment then you're going to need to help bring this to light, not just spread hearsay. His alleged victims deserve that and the free software community needs to know the details of any alleged misconduct.

>> I'm not sure how meditating on it is supposed to negate the latter.

That's because you haven't tried. You're biased in ways you don't see. I'm not pointing a finger or trying criticize here. You seem to have a lot of anger - figure out where that comes from.

> You're biased in ways you don't see

I'm biased against inappropriate conduct towards people and a lack of respect for other people.

I'm not even angry about this, just deeply disappointed in the FSF and their decision to put one man above the voices of countless people who he has repeatedly acted inappropriately towards and has neither acknowledged nor attempted to improve his behaviour.

> put one man above the voices of countless people

In other words, they chose to resist the cancel culture, stick to what they believe is right instead of appeasing an angry mob, and ignore the obviously ill-intended mischaracterizations spreading over the social media.

I'd say they did a good job.

A good read, referenced on Wikipedia: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web

"Acting inappropriately" is not a crime. If you dislike his behavior, don't come near him - you're free to do so. Trying to force your way of thinking on him, instead, is wrong. The fact that he used to ask random women to have sex with him (actually, to "go out with him") does not make him misogynist. The fact that he said that "14 and above" people should be able to have sex if they want, and that "abstaining from sex after puberty is unnatural" does not make him a pedophile. The fact that he questions the use of "sexual assault" phrase in a situation where the "assaulted" person "appears entirely willing" does not make him a rapist.

You might not like his "inappropriate conduct" and that's ok. He, on the other hand, might not like your standards of what is appropriate or not, and that's also ok. I, for one, don't like the hypocrisy and puritanism you seem to espouse. I wouldn't want to be your friend, what with having to worry about my "conduct" constantly. But that's ok, I don't have to be your friend. It's all good. At least until you start forcing your (to me - misguided) values on others, start forming a mob with the intention of lynching him (or me), and try to shame all the people with contrary views into silence.

> I wouldn't want to be your friend, what with having to worry about my "conduct" constantly.

It's about consent. You do not do things to someone, without someone else's consent. An example: If you repeatedly prod me, and I ask you to stop, and you carry on going -- that makes you the asshole. That I asked you to stop, and you ignored me, does not put the blame on me.

You claim he is not a misogynist. The fact that he makes women, in general, uncomfortable by repeatedly making unwanted and unwarranted passes at them constantly -- to the point at which almost all of the women who had to deal with him bought specific plants just to deter him, shows that he is not fit to lead a movement. Because he does not listen to others when they ask him to stop disrespecting their boundaries.

The fact that, when he was asked to stop soliciting women for sex, that he circumvented these rules by passing out cards that asked for sex, shows he fundamentally misunderstands the reason he was asked to stop. That he fundamentally does not understand, or has no will to understand, accept and more importantly respect the personal boundaries of the people -- more often than not women -- around him.

It's not like he was never given any warning. People asked him to stop making the women around him deeply uncomfortable, repeatedly, and he repeatedly refused to listen. At this point, 20 to 40 years later, this is a pattern of abuse.

If this happened at a workplace, they would fire you. If this happened anywhere in society, they would remove you. The FSF did exactly that because people exercised their free speech to say no more to this.

When you constantly, repeatedly act like an asshole in public, and show no respect for the boundaries and space of other people, that will make people very understandably irritated, even angry if it happens constantly. We even have a legal definition for this enshrined in our law -- harassment -- to account for the fact that doing something to another person, or a group of people, without their consent, is psychologically and physically damaging to their health.

That is why he is not fit to lead a movement. That is why people are irate and angered by the refusal of people to listen to the voices of others.

> pieces of writing that lived on his site for decades that were in favour of child abuse.

Come on, that is very hard to believe.

Literally just look at the citations from the Ars Technica article. Which link to Stallman's own writing.

Not sure which Ars Technica article. Please give a link and citation and explain why that shows Stallman is in favour of child abuse. I don't think you will be able to do that.

> and specific pieces of writing that lived on his site for decades that were in favour of child abuse.

He wrote that 14+ teens should be able to engage in sexual acts for fun, if they want. It's incredibly damning, right? And it's advocating child abuse.

Meanwhile, billions of people live in jurisdictions where 12 year olds get routinely married to 3-4 times older people. But, it's Stallman with his benign and - in the civilized world - quite obvious claims that is so wrong that he should never again take part in public discourse!

I can't, for the life of me, understand what's so wrong with people helping each other to orgasm. What's so damaging to the psyche in engaging in consensual sexual acts. Yes, people who didn't yet reach physiological sexual maturity should be protected, and obviously using any kind of force to elicit consent should be punished. Other than that? It's just sex - one of the healthier ways of feeling good. There are cultures where sex has been treated as a normal activity for adolescents for literally tens of thousands of years, where it only became a problem after colonial rule started enforcing taboos and rules alien to the indigenous peoples.

Well, it has nothing to do with this discussion, so I'll end the rant here. My main point is that the twisted view of all sexual activity of young people as "child abuse" is wrong, as is using advocacy for the opposite (ie. treating sex as normal activity; this comment included) to discredit people. Please, try to rethink your stance on the matter. Or alternatively, point me to a quote which actually is "in favour of child abuse". I feel silly writing this, but I think I have to: actual, real child abuse is also, of course, wrong.

Do you need to "be somewhere" to put your software under GPL ? I have missed the memo.

I'll continue to put my software under the GPL until I'm convinced a different license would be better. But along with many others I certainly won't be contributing to an FSF project.

I mean, sure, but the FSF / GNU projects are a very small drop in a very large bucket of GPL / free software projects anyways.

Agreed. I thank them for their license, but they're largely and increasingly irrelevant nowadays. Which is a shame, under better leadership they could effect more positive change on the world.

>Where should we go?

If you're so disgusted by RMS that you refuse to use any of his software, I'd suggest therapy.

So much projection in so few words. I use plenty of GNU software and will continue to do so. I just believe neither he nor the FSF are fit for purpose, and the free software community is better led by others

"but are appalled that RMS was reappointed to the board"

That's the problem. RMS did never harass a woman in his entire life; he may have expressed comments that today, especially in the post #metoo era, appear as inconvenient, but that's it; does he deserve to be painted like he was a sexual assaulter (which he is not, has never been, not even close) by multiple sides at the same time? Why all that negative press? Doesn't this raise some warning flags?

The reason looks very clear to me: he is stubbornly inflexible in his concept of what Free Software means, which is an extremely good thing; he kept the helm straight no matter the external pressure to stop, where others would have sold themselves and the community for 30 pieces of silver. There are huge interests in "killing" him publicly, which would mean destroying the Free Software movement, sell out the Foundation and giving full powers to whomever has to gain big money from that. Just follow the money trail.

RMS never harassed women? Have you spent any time around MIT or other RMS haunts? Dude was well established as a serial harasser. When I was a grad student in 2002 it was common knowledge that he was afraid of spider plants and many women at LCS had spider plants in their offices to keep him away.

As someone who is fat and socially awkward, I am generally greeted with scorn if I smile at an attractive woman. But that does not mean I want to harass or assault them. It does not also mean I don’t have the right to smile - if you are uncomfortable with my smile, the problem is with you, not me.

I couldn’t agree more! If we’re not careful we could have anyone unattractive being chronically labeled a harasser for innocuous social behavior. I’ve experienced it myself. I don’t want to live in a world where simply being unattractive makes someone less than human. That’s clearly a form of violent prejudice.

The allegations aren't smiling, it was asking women to have sex (including parading a bed in his office) repeatedly, in an academic environment. That's a bit more. Then there was the email sent to the CSAIL mailing list that talked about how one shouldn't assume a minor (that was provided by epstein) wasn't willing to have sex.

> Asking women to have sex

Not one women including the "evidence" gathered in the original Medium posts mention that. Actual examples they do mention are quite common for socially inept individuals.

> Parading a bed

For a long time, Stallman lived in his office. I have known other academics who preferred to do the same. Again, not one person has come forward and said that Stallman ever invited them to that bed.

> how one shouldn't assume a minor (that was provided by epstein) wasn't willing to have sex

He did not say that at all. Re-read the emails again. Hint, he uses the word "presented" which completely changes the meaning of the sentence. For someone precise like Stallman, every word matters. Anyway, I have read the emails multiple times now and his only message was to reconsider all the facts first given the serious allegation of "sexual assault" on Minsky. Just because the media has twisted it does not make them true.

>Not one women including the "evidence" gathered in the original Medium posts mention that. Actual examples they do mention are quite common for socially inept individuals.

I said allegations. This doesn't come from the original Medium post, but the recent update. I was hopelessly socially inept and never did such a thing.

>He did not say that at all. Re-read the emails again. Hint, he uses the word "presented" which completely changes the meaning of the sentence. For someone precise like Stallman, every word matters. Anyway, I have read the emails multiple times now and his only message was to reconsider all the facts first given the serious allegation of "sexual assault" on Minsky. Just because the media has twisted it does not make them true.

Wether someone presents or doesn't has no bearing on it being sexual assault. Sexual acts with a minor are always sexual assault unless Romeo and Juliet laws apply, full stop. There is no need to put it in quotes.

Besides, it was abundantly clear to Minsky that these women were minors and that there was a high chance of sexual trafficking.

> Just because the media has twisted it does not make them true.

And you may already be aware of this, but for any third parties reading this, please be aware that these types of things are not a one-off innocent mistake. When you start actually looking you realize that literally everything the corporate press outputs is all part of a carefully crafted narrative, and at no point does actual capital-T Truth come into play.

See also: Gell-Mann Amnesia effect (except more malicious)

I have literally never read a corporate press article on this subject, all the data I have comes from independent allegations made by people who did contribute to free software.

I wasn’t replying to you to be clear, it was a general statement.

However your characterization of his comments wrt Minksy does make me question your credibility. If you couldn’t honestly characterize them, it is more likely that you could be equally disingenuous in recounting “independent allegations”.

I've come to that conclusion after reading the emails by myself.

Sexual relations with minors outside of Romeo and Juliet cases is always sexual assault, and it's even moreso when you're meeting those minors after stepping into the "Lolita Express", at the direct behest of someone that was publicly known to be in the sex trafficking business. Where I live that is unambiguously at least sexual assault, if not worse.

Minsky denies having sex - not that he ever wouldn’t if he did have sex - but my understanding is that she was above the age of consent in the jurisdiction they were in, assuming he knew her age.

“Where you live” should not be the determinant here

I don’t see how Stallman’s admittedly autistic comments are damning. He was pointing out that it is very plausible that to Minsky the girl presented herself as willing and consenting despite secretly being coerced by Epstein.

> Minsky denies having sex - not that he ever wouldn’t if he did have sex

Does the victim, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, agree or disagree with that denial?

If you read her actual deposition [0] it isn't very clear. It is clear that Epstein/Maxwell told her to have sex with Minsky, but it isn't clear whether it actually happened or not. She isn't explicit on that point, and the questioner doesn't ask her to elaborate.

As far as I am aware, in her subsequent public statements and interviews, she has never clarified this specific issue.

Obviously that makes a huge difference as to how one morally judges Minsky. Worse case scenario, Minsky was a willing and knowing client of Epstein's sex trafficking ring. Best case scenario, he displayed poor judgement in continuing to associate with Epstein after his conviction, but was innocent of any participation in Epstein's sexual crimes. I don't think we have enough facts to decide between those two possibilities, but maybe in the absence of evidence we ought to assume the best of people (and especially of the deceased.)

[0] https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ZOEKwoBnDKUFI1hLbFJH5nsUFx... pages numbered 204–205 (PDF pages 182-183)

I'm not a moral legalist nor an absolute moral relativist. Flying out to a different jurisdiction to do morally wrong things doesn't make out any better.

I don't understand how you could pretend that Epstein's coercion was secret. It was literally a matter of public record.

You changed the goalposts. We're not discussing whether it's moral or not. We're discussing Stallman's comment that the interaction between Minksy and the girl was plausibly not sexual assault - specifically whether his comment was unreasonable or not.

Obviously I'm not endorsing having sex with one of Epstein's victims...

> We're discussing Stallman's comment that the interaction between Minksy and the girl

No, it is irrelevant (that alone should not lead to letting him go).

The many cases of actual in-person harassments are the important parts, like actually grabbing a colleague’s ass and there is plenty of others - just because “that side” is wrong on the former point, doesn’t make them wrong on the other.

No, I'm not changing the goalposts. My definition of sexual assault doesn't change depending on where in the world the sexual assault takes places. Having sexual encounters with an underage person is at least sexual assault, full stop. I don't care if you flew to an island where it's technically legal beforehand or if local laws are different.

I mean these allegations from established researchers etc. are pretty damning https://twitter.com/grok_/status/1375049417926053894

Are they? Forgive me for being skeptical post-Kavanaugh but I find it hard to believe that Stallman licked somebody in public without it being big news...

I think we need to have actual standards of evidence when it comes to booting someone not just from the FSF but the community as a whole

> it was common knowledge that he was afraid of spider plants

"p.s.: In the closet-sized "office" Bushnell, McGrath, and I shared for a time we did have some spider plants as part of a running silly joke. They did not actually scare RMS away OF COURSE"

-- Thomas Lord.

Please note the capitalised "OF COURSE" and reflect on the veracity of your "common knowledge".

> When I was a grad student in 2002 it was common knowledge

You should always question what is "common knowledge" especially when it comes to emotional issues where prejudice is rampant.

> Dude was well established as a serial harasser

You've made the claim, now back it up - otherwise you're spreading hearsay.

Is there any easy catalog of these harassments somewhere? Preferably outside of social media-I can’t view the stuff.

I would say this is a pretty good run-down - https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... .

Sounds like nasty gossip, did anyone actually verify any of this?