Struggling to deal with the organisations shunning the FSF for the sake of inclusivity and equality

who are still comfortable with Google and IBM's patronage, orgs who are doing a great job ensuring that the future (w/biased AI, algos) will be very unequal and shut out minorities.

(also, the Gebru/Mitchell episode)

· · Web · 2 · 5 · 7

It gets into a whole new level when I'm reading that is considering a switch from the GPL because of the FSF/Stallman episode

It makes zero sense to me how these would be connected. I mean, might as well trash the MIT license because of MIT's role in the Epstein coverup?

I hate this whole novella.

(btw it's clear to me that MIT does not play the same institutional role towards the MIT license as the FSF does toward the GPL. That was a bit of a cheeky hot take)

But if you're on this thread, I'd suggest this article for what i think is a sober and well articulated perspective about canceling RMS:

notes on #fsf 

Some notes after reading responses and ongoing threads:
- "cancel Stallman" is quickly becoming "let the FSF die"
- I can hear Tim O'Reilly & co. popping the champagne, the demise of the FSF is the final triumph of the "open source" agenda
- I am not canceling my FSF membership and neither should you

notes on #fsf 

@rlafuente question is : should the Free-Software / Libre movement depend on such institutions (that are not democratic and can be taken over) and "personifiated icons" (as in the open letter in support of RMS) that are "false gods" prone to failure as any human ?
it's called fanatism
and so imho probably some forks are needed to get to the point a Libre Systems Foundation will be diverse, representative and democratic, on the devs/engineers side as on the gen public side

notes on #fsf 

but there are forks already (e.g. FSFE) and one does not need to kill a project in order to fork it, right?

i'm all for lessening dependency on centralised institutions, but you do that by forking (as you rightly say), not by canceling, imho

basically, first there was the argument "the world will be better without RMS in a relevant position"

now it is changing tune to "the world will be better without the FSF"

and that's a very problematic position

notes on #fsf 

@rlafuente what I see is in a "world with RMS unexpectedly and in a non-transparent way being back at a very relevant position" members not happy at all leaving, as only mean of action/voice in a pretty cloudy decision system, and saying it loud ...

that's forking ... ;)

notes on #fsf 

ah i get you now, "forking" is a cloudy term!

though i'd expect a "fork" to be a new institution -- this is more like a pull request for a major reboot?

anyway semantics aside, i like your view of a Libre Systems Foundation

notes on #fsf 

@rlafuente ha yeah, from my experience forking is a process that can take some time, and part of is is being upset about the main branch and leaving with more or less doorslams ...
sometimes some had prepared their plan and have an alternative route ready, sometime it take some time to reach a new consensus ... and sometimes it all dies because it's not relevant in the actual proposed form (for multiple reasons)
I hope something can emerge better from this turmoil ... ;)

@rlafuente I could understand removing the "or later" from "GPL version X or later" due to loss of trust in the FSF.

@rlafuente I think we could use a new copyleft license not written by the FSF. Of course switching away from the GPL to a noncopyleft license would be an absurd response to current events.

@be @rlafuente switching license is not trivial, you have to ask anyone who contributed. all have to agree

also, using a different copyleft license than GPL would make the code incompatible with any GPL code, so you would be unable to collaborate with projects that use GPL, splitting efforts once more

so, i think that is an absurd idea that would hurt the free software community

also, when you consider not using GPL because RMS wrote it, shouldn't you also not use copyleft? it's also his idea

@davidak @rlafuente License incompatibility is a real issue and of course any new license should explicitly be written to avoid that.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Welcome to, an instance for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.