Re:We need more of Richard Stallman, not less
by beedeebeedee on Monday June 19, 2023 @09:30AM
(#36390877)
> But his fiercest detractors are much worse.
Agreed. He has done cringe-worthy things (and worse), but his detractors take malicious glee in trashing him. That is low and dishonest behavior.
The FSF refused people who explicitly said they were totally ok with RMS being here too, that they just wanted to be able to disagree with him if need be and don't think that he should not be seen as indispensable. They also refused people just because they wanted to continue to work with local free software group that at some point communicated their disagreement with RMS.
Re:We need more of Richard Stallman, not less
by raxxorraxor on Monday June 19, 2023 @09:32AM
(#36390897)
Without any further info, I would file that under unfounded rumors.
You have to understand that there was corporate influence that tried to topple him multiple times. So in that regard, yes, sadly his critics must be vetted closely. If that hits valid criticism, I am very sorry for that.
What you call unfounded rumor is what I and others have experienced first-hand. For my part, I still have the mails.
Re:We need more of Richard Stallman, not less
by lovelyviking on Monday June 19, 2023 @11:34AM
(#36392289)
>They also refused people just because they wanted to continue to work with local free software group that at some point communicated their disagreement with RMS.
what kind of disagreement? hard to understand without knowing that.
But I somewhat agree that people that criticise Stallman should be vetted closely as many of the accusations were very dishonest.
I agree that the FSF shouldn't tie itself to an individual, but the behavior of his distractors seem personal and much more "problematic". He has a strong opinion and isn't a people person, but that is certainly not a problem.
We don't really need unqualified market researchers that believe they know what some blurry target group might want to support.