#Signal turning into a crypto-ponzi currency scheme?
- isn't really free/libre software (as Moxie denied freedom to redistribute modified version)
- would *never* federate (political choice of centralization)
- updated server software wasn't published
- invaded people's phonebooks
- runs on Amazon+NSA's infrastructure
- is virtually impossible to use out of Google's infrastructure -
...didn't seem to be enough to alarm Signal users.
@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.
@maryjane I've commented on rms before (see https://post.lurk.org/@rlafuente/105947090425053524)
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
@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
@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
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
so-called "cancel culture"
Regardless of our positions, it seems like many of us are guilty of thus:
"Women get fired every day for spurning their boss' advances, and black kids are disproportionally suspended from school for 'bad attitudes,' despite no actual differences in attitude quality. But we don't yell at each other about these cases because they never hit the main feed and the chattering classes are far more likely to focus myopically on cases they can see themselves in rather than the domination and injustice constantly suffered by far more vulnerable people."
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
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
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
Who is concerned about Stallman's return to the Free Software Foundation, instead of empty critique should work hard to solidify the next steps of the Free Software Movement. The nihilist rebellion just benefits groups like Red Hat (IBM) waiting to occupy board of directors (as it does at Linux FDN beside Facebook & friends). It's not about #stallman and #fsf , it's about the Free software/culture movement. So purposeful manifestation like this is way better than tears:
(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: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web
It gets into a whole new level when I'm reading that Processing.org 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.
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)
@liaizon only spiritually :) but yes, back when I started it I was really inspired by _why's vision of creative coding for everyone (and not just for fancy designs done by designers who started to code)
i design and i hack and i teach and i write and i play, not necessarily in that order
Welcome to post.lurk.org, an instance for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.