J.B., Very insightful commentary. I also enjoyed the Strossen article, as I am very anti-cancel culture. What do you think the endgame is for the corporate takeover of Gnu/Libre/Linux? Sneaky DRM everywhere? Degradation of the copy left attribute of the licensing?
Sincerely, Patrick Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 6, 2021, at 11:12 PM, J.B. Nicholson <j...@forestfield.org> wrote: > > Daniel Pocock wrote: >> Organizations need a process for evaluating incidents like this fairly and >> objectively. > > I think that that process should include listing one's rights and evidence > which we're all allowed to see. It also would be good to have more clearly > established reasoning such as what Nadine Strossen is reported to have said > on the issue of RMS' re-admittance to the FSF Board of Directors (see > https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web-rms -- Strossen's arguments > put the lie to those who claim that freedom of speech has nothing to do with > RMS' readmittance[1]). There Strossen makes reference to actual court > decisions where evidence is brought up for review, argued over, and all done > under a system we can learn and understand. And laws generally have periods > where punishment is valid and punishments last for known periods of time. We > also have a means of changing laws and punishments. I don't see anything like > that going on in this issue concerning RMS' readmittance to the FSF Board. > What I've seen in this debate is indistinguishable from reacting to RMS' > ideas others don't like or agree with. No matter how much one disagrees with > those ideas, that's still speech. > > [1] http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html and > https://current.workingdirectory.net/posts/2021/stallman/ have both made this > point. > >> For example, when Linus made some comments at DebConf there was a big fuss. >> Many >> people complained that nobody was willing to interrupt Linus. People want >> to have >> their cake and eat it too. > > When I think about Linus Torvalds in the context of RMS returning to the FSF > Board, I recall that Torvalds has a well-known and public record of swearing > at programmers whose code he didn't like. This apparently included giving > people the middle finger and Sarah Sharp pointing out "Linus Torvalds is > advocating for physical intimidation and violence. Ingo Molnar and Linus are > advocating for verbal abuse." in order to get Linux kernel hackers to improve > the quality of their patches (see > https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus-torvalds-defends-his-right-to-shame-linux-kernel-developers/ > for more on this). Torvalds was allowed to choose to temporarily retire from > his work, reconsider his previous statements, and (at least insofar as > establishment media reports it) uncontroversially return to his work. There > was a time when Torvalds' speech was a subject of some debate on mailing > lists and that time appears to be over. Not so for RMS. > > At no point do I recall anyone heading up or joining an effort asking people > to: stop supporting the Linux kernel, refuse to contribute to projects > related to Linus Torvalds, and not speak at or attend Linux kernel events or > "events that welcome" Torvalds "and his brand of intolerance" all "while > doing these things, tell[ing] these communities and the" Linux-related > group/project why. All of these things are listed in the demands of the > github.io anti-RMS letter. This strikes me as a remarkably inconsistent take > which (when considered from a cui bono -- who benefits? -- perspective) > ultimately favors proprietors. After all, Torvalds' Linux fork contains > proprietary software (which GNU Linux-libre removes in its fork of the Linux > kernel; perhaps this is a project we're supposed to shun because GNU > Linux-libre is part of the GNU Project and the GNU Project is headed up by > RMS). > > It wouldn't surprise me if the open source mindset (which was always amenable > to non-free software and actively discourages freedom talk -- the OSI for > years referred to freedom talk as "ideological tub-thumping" on its website) > was behind some of the corporate backers opposing RMS' readmittance. One > noteworthy contributor opposing RMS' return is IBM (which owns Red Hat). This > is particularly ironic on ethical grounds given that IBM did business with > the 3rd Reich in Germany and (in more modern times) tries to downplay or > distract attention away from the legitimacy of that ugly history (see "The > Corporation" segment with Edwin Black and an IBM representative responding to > Black's research for this or watch > https://files.digitalcitizen.info/corporations-prop-up-fascists/the-corporation-nazi-germany.webm > to see that segment). > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu > https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
