Follow

fsf 

Employees of Microsoft, IBM and Google signing appeals for the FSF board to resign

I mean, just imagine BP, Exxon and friends running a campaign to change Greenpeace's leadership

The "open source" camp really succeeded in presenting itself as neutral, but make no mistake, this is as ideological as things could get: "open source" was created to counter the free software/copyleft movement, and this is the long-awaited killing blow

· · Web · 4 · 0 · 2

fsf 

@rlafuente This issue is so messed up, and conflates so many issues, that at the moment it seems that no one can have a rational debate about it.

I disagree with some of the terms of the letter. But I am of the opinion that the FSF should have prepared years ago to replace Stallman.

No "movement" should be so dependent of one person.

fsf 

@maryjane you're right that it's many issues into one, which is why i'm focusing on this specific detail.

I've addressed the rms specifics on other posts here, but one can be critical of Stallman and critical of the ongoing anti-FSF campaign. Believing you *have* to pick sides only pollutes the debate further

fsf 

@rlafuente

My two cents on the matter are:

- I believe Stallman should have given place to others may years ago. I don't like "dictators", benevolent or of any other kind

- While, he is uncompromising in his view if free software as a political movement I do not think that he is the best we can offer as a face for the movement

- I am still undecided about the letter because there are several things I do not agree in it.

fsf 

@maryjane I've commented on rms before (see post.lurk.org/@rlafuente/10594)

i'd emphasize that this is not *only* about rms, but also about the FSF and an attack on software freedom.

And I find that too often there is the drive to turn every argument on the issue to be about Stallman. This campaign has become an all-out attack on the FSF with very very harsh statements on its usefulness, which goes way beyond criticizing its founder.

And I think there are other details worth mentioning, as I was trying to do in the initial post. Feel free to discuss rms but please respect that not every FSF thread should be about him

fsf 

@rlafuente ok de-escalating this a bit :D

No, not all threads about the FSF needs to be about RMS.

And at this moment the FSF is a "saco de pancada"

I am also not canceling my membership of the FSF. And the FSF needs to exist.

But the FSF also needs some reforms, in it's processes board selection processes. Among others.

fsf 

@rlafuente

<troll moment>
Eric S Raymond signed the letter in defense of RMS
</Troll moment>

fsf 

@rlafuente

1/2

"Believing you *have* to pick sides only pollutes the debate further" Absolutely agree with you.

About this "specific detail", you used the example:

"imagine BP, Exxon and friends _running_ (my emphasis on "running")a campaign to change Greenpeace's leadership"

I will not question that there are people from MS and Google signing that letter. If people took to the trouble of checking everyone that signed the letter, ok, I believe them.

fsf 

@rlafuente

2/2

But stating that the people that _started_ the letter and are _running_ the process (accepting new signatures), are from MS and google is a tad too much

fsf 

@maryjane ok fair point, the argument doesn't need that bit of hyperbole

Still, i believe there is still a point to be made about anti-copyleft companies attempting to influence and condition the FSF in such a brazen way

fsf 

@rlafuente ...which could have easily been avoided by not having Stallman back on the board.

fsf 

@despens You're right, and I think even some hardcore Stallmanites would also agree that the handling of his return should have been much more thought out.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
post.lurk.org

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