i also don’t like drama - but i think this is important because this report shows that drew clearly did not care about the unethical takes of stallman when he created the stallman report, the report was an attack on the FSF and the free software community in general and people were unable to recognize this when the report was first published
FYI, DeVault’s Stallman Report explicitly attacks the FSF as well as Stallman.
The FSF is not the free software community
OP said that the report was “an attack on the FSF and the free software community in general” which doesn’t imply that the FSF is the free software community and in fact is explicitly distinguishing the two. I took it mean that the report was such a deceitful and irrational work, presented in such a duplicitous manner as to constitute an attack on the senses of the community.
Edit: in fact, the report does attack the community, even if justification for the attack is invalid:
FYI, DeVault’s Stallman Report explicitly attacks the FSF as well as Stallman.
I read the report. You are free to show me exactly where it criticizes the FSF beyond their interactions with Stallman.
I took it mean that the report was such a deceitful and irrational work, presented in such a duplicitous manner as to constitute an attack on the senses of the community.
Stallman doesn’t seem to get that pedophilia is wrong because of the hierarchy of power, and the power imbalances between older/younger people, not because of some inherent wrongness about being attracted to a prepubescent person. This is shown by how he condemns some pedophilia, but is accepting of 12+/past puberty. (I despise this logic, because it would also make gay sex and sodomy wrong, as well).
I find this deeply ironic, because his primary issue with proprietary software is the way that it gives developers levels of power over users. From his article Why Open Source Misses the Point
But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects their freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its users? Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting, and reliability that they are harder to remove.
You would expect someone who is so in tune with the hierarchies that appear with software developers, publishers, and users, to also see those same hierarchies echoed in relationships between people of vastly different ages, but instead, we get this. I’m extremely disappointed.
These failures to understand hierarchy and power, are exactly why Stallman shouldn’t be in a position of power. Leaders should continually prove that they understand hierarchy and the effects of their actions on those below them. Someone who doesn’t understand how their power could affect another, shouldn’t be a leader.
End quote.
And I’ll add onto this a little bit: Although Stallman seems to have redacted his earlier claim about pederasty, continuing to defend the legality of the possession of CSAM (beyond safe harbor/hospitality provisions), is very problematic, and clearly shows that he hasn’t learned his lesson. CSAM ownership should be heavily disincentivized, to disincentivize the selling/buying of CSAM, as that’s one of the most effective ways to stop more CSAM production.
I don’t view pointing out that Stallman is not fit for a position of leadership to be an “attack” on the FSF or the free software community. And although the information gathering of the linked post is very, very impressive, it doesn’t really invalidate what was said in the Stallman Report, or the Stallman Report’s core points.
You are free to show me exactly where it criticizes the FSF beyond their interactions with stallman.
I’m glad we agree that DeVault’s Stallman Report attacks the FSF.
I don’t view pointing out that Stallman is not fit for a position of leadership to be an “attack” on the FSF or the free software community.
OP didn’t say which of the many attacks in the report they were referring to, they just said the report was “an attack”. I’ve no idea why you believe OP was referring to DeVault’s claim that Stallman is not fit for a position of leadership. That doesn’t make any sense. If one were being uncharitable, one might even say it was… irrational.
To all members of the present-day Voting Members and Board of Directors who were contemporaneous with the 2019 scandal and the associated patterns of misconduct, we urge you to step down from your posts and allow new leaders to fill your roles. Namely:
Alexandre Oliva
Geoffrey Knauth
Gerald Sussman
Henry Poole
In particular we call upon Mr. Knauth to uphold his 2021 pledge to resign “as soon as there is a clear path for new leadership assuring continuity of the FSF’s mission and compliance with fiduciary requirements”.
your tldr is kinda underselling it ngl
i also don’t like drama - but i think this is important because this report shows that drew clearly did not care about the unethical takes of stallman when he created the stallman report, the report was an attack on the FSF and the free software community in general and people were unable to recognize this when the report was first published
Stallman is not the FSF. The FSF is not the free software community. The free software community is not free software.
I’m so tired to people presenting these things as if they are equivalent.
FYI, DeVault’s Stallman Report explicitly attacks the FSF as well as Stallman.
OP said that the report was “an attack on the FSF and the free software community in general” which doesn’t imply that the FSF is the free software community and in fact is explicitly distinguishing the two. I took it mean that the report was such a deceitful and irrational work, presented in such a duplicitous manner as to constitute an attack on the senses of the community.
Edit: in fact, the report does attack the community, even if justification for the attack is invalid:
“The case against Stallman is clear, and yet the free software community has failed to act …” – https://stallman-report.org/#why-publish-this-report
I read the report. You are free to show me exactly where it criticizes the FSF beyond their interactions with Stallman.
I’ll just copy my older comment, and put it here
Begin quote:
Stallman doesn’t seem to get that pedophilia is wrong because of the hierarchy of power, and the power imbalances between older/younger people, not because of some inherent wrongness about being attracted to a prepubescent person. This is shown by how he condemns some pedophilia, but is accepting of 12+/past puberty. (I despise this logic, because it would also make gay sex and sodomy wrong, as well).
I find this deeply ironic, because his primary issue with proprietary software is the way that it gives developers levels of power over users. From his article Why Open Source Misses the Point
You would expect someone who is so in tune with the hierarchies that appear with software developers, publishers, and users, to also see those same hierarchies echoed in relationships between people of vastly different ages, but instead, we get this. I’m extremely disappointed.
These failures to understand hierarchy and power, are exactly why Stallman shouldn’t be in a position of power. Leaders should continually prove that they understand hierarchy and the effects of their actions on those below them. Someone who doesn’t understand how their power could affect another, shouldn’t be a leader.
End quote.
And I’ll add onto this a little bit: Although Stallman seems to have redacted his earlier claim about pederasty, continuing to defend the legality of the possession of CSAM (beyond safe harbor/hospitality provisions), is very problematic, and clearly shows that he hasn’t learned his lesson. CSAM ownership should be heavily disincentivized, to disincentivize the selling/buying of CSAM, as that’s one of the most effective ways to stop more CSAM production.
I don’t view pointing out that Stallman is not fit for a position of leadership to be an “attack” on the FSF or the free software community. And although the information gathering of the linked post is very, very impressive, it doesn’t really invalidate what was said in the Stallman Report, or the Stallman Report’s core points.
I’m glad we agree that DeVault’s Stallman Report attacks the FSF.
OP didn’t say which of the many attacks in the report they were referring to, they just said the report was “an attack”. I’ve no idea why you believe OP was referring to DeVault’s claim that Stallman is not fit for a position of leadership. That doesn’t make any sense. If one were being uncharitable, one might even say it was… irrational.
Edit: corrected quote, clarified wording
nobody said stallman is fsf
the report also targets the fsf: