Re: Stallman missing?
Last email message I got from him was today at 07:00 (local time) and he seems OK. On Feb 2, 2024, at 12:38, Ruben Safir wrote: Has anyone heard from Richard of late? He seems to have maintained a low profile sinc ehis health issues.
Re: Bill Gates in the news: Deja vu
People, Intention behind my previous emails was to avoid misunderstanding from Akira's emails. Akira is a good friend and colleague of ours and I don't accuse him of anything, specially in the case of RMS v. Hate Campaign. I addressed Akira because I didn't want to address anyone directly. If I caused any misunderstanding for any of you, I apologize. Sadly I became the very thing I intended to avoid, causing misunderstandings. Let me clear my message. I said "What was the case was that RMS asked some people out and insisted on that. Now, maybe the insisting part made them uncomfortable..." I didn't meant to say RMS insisted on anything, what I meant was that even if RMS insisted, he didn't commit any crime and the nature of what RMS did is completely different from the Gates' case. Maybe some woman accused him that he "insisted", but that is false. He invited someone out, but if she said "no", Richard *did no insist*. About FSF board investigating the RMS case back in 2019, I didn't mean that FSF assigned a team of HR or anything. What I meant was that FSF board and people, at least some of them, followed the claims and reports and were aware of the situation. I didn't mean to spread false information. Please understand that I'm not a native English speaker and some words I use may be wrong. FSF did accept the RMS' resignation because they believed the accusations were true, and that's why I believe they followed the case. Sadly they didn't follow the case very carefully. I apologize if caused any harm or misled people. And I apologize to Akira if I made people look Akira is doing harm or is spreading false information, as I said, my only intention was to avoid misunderstanding Akira, which I think I failed somehow. Best. -- Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com) Libre culture activist and privacy advocate PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bill Gates in the news: Deja vu
I misread your last line so what I wrote doesn't make sense. I thought you said "impossible" instead of "possible". For that, I apologize. And Akira, please note that I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just replying to you for those of people who may be confused about the matter. Sorry if my message seems unkind, I don't intend to be offensive. I just don't want people to get the idea that RMS and Bill Gates cases are the same. On May 18, 2021 11:59:14 PM UTC, Ali Reza Hayati wrote: >Akira, I think you're confused. Let me answer your message part by part >so you don't cause confusion or misunderstanding for others. > >On 19/05/2021 03:38, Akira Urushibata wrote: >> Reports about the personal life of Microsoft founder Bill Gates are >> appearing in the mainstream media. Some charges sound familiar - >> nearly identical ones were cast upon a different person a couple >> years ago. >> >> I wonder why this is happening. I see expressions like this: >> >>"Bill Gates Had Reputation for Questionable Behavior" >> - New York Times >> >>"... pursued women who worked for him at Microsoft and at the Bill >> and Melinda Gates Foundation, creating what were described as >> uncomfortable work environments" - NBC News >> >> Bill Gates met Jeffrey Epstein several times. He does not deny that >> the meetings happened. His spokesman, however, seems concerned that >> the nature of these encounters is misunderstood. > >This is true. However, RMS never had any encounter with Epstein for any >reason and he called Epstein a serial rapist many times. The >controversial comments were also not about the nature of the crimes but >how they were put in words. > >So while Gates may be asked about the intentions behind those meetings, >RMS is clear that he never met and supported anybody n that case, what >RMS did was to describe the meaning behind the words, not anything else. >So there's no need to be concerned about the nature of relationship >between RMS and Epstein, as there's no relationship. > >> One thing that has become clear is that Microsoft's board has >> investigated the founder's relation with a female employee and >> concluded that it had been inappropriate. > >This true. However, the case, specially the hate letter, against RMS is >not about RMS' relationship with any FSF employees as there were no >relationship in the matter. None of the ones who "claimed" they were >hurt by RMS did have relationship in the term of >girlfriend/boyfriend/partner/etc. with RMS. > >What was the case was that RMS asked some people out and insisted on >that. Now, maybe the insisting part made them uncomfortable but that's >no crime. Not for RMS, not for Gates, not for anybody. > >> Has the FSF board investigated the widely held claim that Richard >> Stallman "defended" Jeffrey Epstein? I don't think they have >> investigated anything. As a consequence they have allowed rumors >> of their founder's "bad behavior" run out of control and cause >> unnecessary confusion and damage to personal reputation. > >FSF board did investigate that. So did a large members of our great >community. Stallman actually never defended Epstein, he just explained >the meaning behind some words. You can read those comments and emails >yourself. > >Bad behavior is relative. I'm comfortable with many stuff while some >people even consider jokes as bad behavior. But if you want to compare >Gates with Stallman, the difference is that Stallman never had any >relationship with those who claim are hurt, but Gates did have >relationship, as we see on news, I'm not judging or deciding anything. > >> I have a request: Do not do to Bill Gates what you would not like done >> to yourself or Richard Stallman. It is possible that the stories that >> are recently surfacing are not true. Do not turn your eyes away from >> what may appear to be lame apology, for therein often lies the seeds >> of truth. >> > >I support this. Nobody should be punished for crime one didn't do. If >Gates is innocent, he shouldn't be punished. > >However, you say, and I quote, "It is possible that the stories that are >recently surfacing are not true." This is a weird statement because it >is not impossible. All of the claims *can* be untrue. > >About the apology, if you think what RMS wrote was a lame apology, you >should first prove that what was claimed against Stallman was true. I >don't expect someone who didn't commit a crime to be punished or to >apologize, I think you think so. > >If you haven't read the clai
Re: Bill Gates in the news: Deja vu
Akira, I think you're confused. Let me answer your message part by part so you don't cause confusion or misunderstanding for others. On 19/05/2021 03:38, Akira Urushibata wrote: Reports about the personal life of Microsoft founder Bill Gates are appearing in the mainstream media. Some charges sound familiar - nearly identical ones were cast upon a different person a couple years ago. I wonder why this is happening. I see expressions like this: "Bill Gates Had Reputation for Questionable Behavior" - New York Times "... pursued women who worked for him at Microsoft and at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, creating what were described as uncomfortable work environments" - NBC News Bill Gates met Jeffrey Epstein several times. He does not deny that the meetings happened. His spokesman, however, seems concerned that the nature of these encounters is misunderstood. This is true. However, RMS never had any encounter with Epstein for any reason and he called Epstein a serial rapist many times. The controversial comments were also not about the nature of the crimes but how they were put in words. So while Gates may be asked about the intentions behind those meetings, RMS is clear that he never met and supported anybody n that case, what RMS did was to describe the meaning behind the words, not anything else. So there's no need to be concerned about the nature of relationship between RMS and Epstein, as there's no relationship. One thing that has become clear is that Microsoft's board has investigated the founder's relation with a female employee and concluded that it had been inappropriate. This true. However, the case, specially the hate letter, against RMS is not about RMS' relationship with any FSF employees as there were no relationship in the matter. None of the ones who "claimed" they were hurt by RMS did have relationship in the term of girlfriend/boyfriend/partner/etc. with RMS. What was the case was that RMS asked some people out and insisted on that. Now, maybe the insisting part made them uncomfortable but that's no crime. Not for RMS, not for Gates, not for anybody. Has the FSF board investigated the widely held claim that Richard Stallman "defended" Jeffrey Epstein? I don't think they have investigated anything. As a consequence they have allowed rumors of their founder's "bad behavior" run out of control and cause unnecessary confusion and damage to personal reputation. FSF board did investigate that. So did a large members of our great community. Stallman actually never defended Epstein, he just explained the meaning behind some words. You can read those comments and emails yourself. Bad behavior is relative. I'm comfortable with many stuff while some people even consider jokes as bad behavior. But if you want to compare Gates with Stallman, the difference is that Stallman never had any relationship with those who claim are hurt, but Gates did have relationship, as we see on news, I'm not judging or deciding anything. I have a request: Do not do to Bill Gates what you would not like done to yourself or Richard Stallman. It is possible that the stories that are recently surfacing are not true. Do not turn your eyes away from what may appear to be lame apology, for therein often lies the seeds of truth. I support this. Nobody should be punished for crime one didn't do. If Gates is innocent, he shouldn't be punished. However, you say, and I quote, "It is possible that the stories that are recently surfacing are not true." This is a weird statement because it is not impossible. All of the claims *can* be untrue. About the apology, if you think what RMS wrote was a lame apology, you should first prove that what was claimed against Stallman was true. I don't expect someone who didn't commit a crime to be punished or to apologize, I think you think so. If you haven't read the claims or followed the actual story, I can suggest https://stallmansupport.org/ with every detail needed and some great articles that explain the matter. I hope you haven't just followed some people's baseless claims and believed them without really fact checking and analyzing. Check the website I sent and please do ask if you had any question. Best of all. -- Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com) Libre culture activist and privacy advocate PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Boxer syndrome
I really believe my new blog post is related to what is happening to the free software world today. Boxer syndrome https://alirezahayati.com/2021/05/09/boxer-syndrome/ -- Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com) Libre culture activist and privacy advocate PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Continuation of my previous mail
We don't live, think, talk, or act by your standards. Human beings are free are part of their freedom is freedom of speech and thought. I'm sorry you're hurt by jokes or undesirable humor, I too get hurt sometimes, but that doesn't mean anything but that I'm incapable of laughing at that. Sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes they are not, in any case, you can't limit people because you don't like their taste or sense. On 04/05/2021 11:36, Rohit Dutt via General GNU project and free software discussions wrote: I got a mail from "shulie" saying this: > *IF* RMS hurt any woman, that's why I said it. nonsense If you mean that I said it for any other reason, then I apologise. If RMS has not done any harm to anyone, then once again, I apologise, I was only going by what I read on the Net. Just to get things straight and end the matter, what exactly is this "joke about /abortion/"??!! I don't find abortion anything to joke about. Someone tell me please. Sent using Zoho Mail -- Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com) Libre culture activist and privacy advocate PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
Should I mention that truth doesn't care about people's feelings? Some of you know me, some don't. Those who know me also know that I always try to be respectful. However, this doesn't mean I'm always kind. I respect people, not their opinions. If something is idiotic or dumb, that's the case, I can't help it. Stop whining about people not being nice, instead, focus on the arguments. If you don't have a good argument or your whole argument is that someone is not nice to you, you're in a wrong earth. I support you though, I believe we should all fight for a nicer world in which people are kind to one another, but as long as it's the matter of truth or false, your feelings have no value, this includes me too. Please people, stop fighting about feelings or people being nice, and focus on the arguments. Progress will be made by doing work, not by being nice. Now you can be nice while you do work or you're mean and still doing work. If you're one of those, then you're fine, if you're only focused on being nice, then get out please. I say all that with respect and a happy face. -- Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com) Libre culture activist and privacy advocate PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Fwd: Answering your frequently asked questions about the FSF board
Forwarded Message Subject:Answering your frequently asked questions about the FSF board Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:06:51 -0400 From: Geoffrey Knauth, FSF To: Ali Reza Hayati Dear Ali Reza Hayati, As you know, one of the priorities of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) board of directors in the coming weeks is to strengthen the Foundation's governance structure. To that end, I wanted to share with you the answers to frequently asked questions about this initiative. This document is available at https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-board-frequently-asked-questions-faq <https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-board-frequently-asked-questions-faq> and will be updated, as needed, as this project progresses. Answers to frequently asked questions about FSF governance What are the responsibilities of a member of the FSF board? The responsibilities of FSF board members are described at https://www.fsf.org/about/the-role-of-the-fsfs-board-of-directors <https://www.fsf.org/about/the-role-of-the-fsfs-board-of-directors>. The board of directors does not usually deal with the everyday work of the FSF, focusing instead on the long-term direction and financial stability of the Foundation, as well as the appointment of the officers. In addition, members of the board do not speak for the board or for the FSF. Outside of the deliberations of the board, they are private citizens. The right to speak for the Foundation is reserved to the president of the FSF and other FSF officers, such as the executive director. When the board does make statements, each statement is carefully deliberated. No one member has this individual authority. What differentiates board members and voting members in FSF governance? Voting member meetings are separate from board meetings. Voting member meetings normally discuss only who should be on the board. They do not take up the issues that come before the board itself. The original reason for the voting members is historical. When the Foundation was formed in 1985, the founders were advised that, to qualify for a tax exemption, board members should not be chosen solely by other board members. Legal counsel advised the founders that there should be two bodies with some overlap, one being the active board and the other being a body that appointed the active board. Governance standards have since changed, and this structure is no longer required. As part of the effort to improve FSF governance, the board can consider possible changes to this overall structure. The FSF voting members, as of April 28, 2021, are the current directors (Odile Bénassy, Ian Kelling, Geoffrey Knauth, Henry Poole, Richard Stallman, and Gerald Sussman) and one former board member, Alexandre Oliva. How long is the term of a board member? There is no formal term limit for a board member. Board members are evaluated by the voting members at regular intervals, and occasionally by the other directors. From time to time, voting members have removed board members. Board members may resign from the board if they find participation on the board stressful, or if they have a conflict of interest, or for other more personal reasons. Is there any compensation involved for board members? Board members are not compensated for their work as board members. They serve as volunteers. They may occasionally be reimbursed for expenses incurred while doing their work for the FSF. What are the goals of the board's effort to rewrite the FSF's bylaws? Mission integrity is the key reason. Board members agree that the bylaws need to be written in a way that ensures that user freedom cannot be compromised by changes in the board, members, or hostile courts. Of particular concern is the future of the various GNU General Public Licenses (GPL). Secondarily, the board agrees on the need to strengthen our board evaluation procedure as we recruit new members. The bylaws also need to change to codify the implementation of the staff seat, which was created on March 25, 2021. In addition, since the last change to the bylaws was made in 2003, the board intends to review them and make various improvements. Why did the FSF board recently add a union staff seat on the board? For a long time, the staff has wanted more access to the board. In the aftermath of the March 2021 controversy over the election of Richard Stallman to the board, the union formally asked to have direct staff participation. Dialogue with the staff has only reinforced the truth that staff have great intelligence, commitment, insight, sensitivity, skill, and relationships within the community. Creating a staff seat on the board made eminent sense. Why is the board seeking a consultant to help design the process for identifying and recruiting new board members? A qualified consultant will make sure that the effort to strengthen and modernize the b
Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project
y creating this assembly, we affirmed that GNU Project leadership is in our hands, collectively, as maintainers and contributors to GNU." https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assem...@lists.gnu.tools/thread/SMFKD7M34VUTUW45MSO4UOWL4C7V5FQT/ As things are, holding beliefs about what a certain things constitute doesn't conflict with the GNU project. To clarify, if someone declares their house to be the newly founded dutchy of X, and themselves royalty, but abides by every law of the land and only adds stipulations that do not contravene existing regulations (e.g. every visitor to the kingdom of X must wear a silly hat), that is certainly odd, but should be no ground for the proper authorities to intervene or curtail their freedom of claiming it is so. There is also a proposal for inviting new software projects to the GNU project. https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assem...@lists.gnu.tools/thread/QDYJKAVUKI3LS42AWWBSJXE34ANECRNO/ This would be a direct violation of the GNU Project's integrity. Much as the EU parliament is able to accommodate and harbour an "anti-EU" faction, there is no real reason, at this moment, for the GNU Project to disavow or even undertake any action against the Assembly or its members. The only real transgression is the somewhat petty "GNU Social Contract", which tries to imply by its name that it contains policy for the larger GNU project. As stated previously, this was pointed out repeatedly to the writers during the drafting stage, so it might be a deliberate attempt to provoke an overreaction by some. As things are, my recommendations would be: -make clear that within the GNU Project's framework there is no such thing as a "GNU Social Contract" so people new to GNU will not be confused about their obligations. -to monitor if the Assembly will add new software to the GNU Project outside of the normal procedures and channels, and, if needed, inform the writers of the software that they are being misled. -to be wary of the Assembly trying to alter the free software definition so it would allow for non-free software (e.g. "ethical source") and thereby subvert the goals of the GNU Project by association. Other than that, I think the GNU Project's general "live and let live" approach towards maintainers and project development hould be honoured, even if some Assembly members appear to hold hostile opinions. Andreas R. -- Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com) Libre culture activist and privacy advocate PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771 OpenPGP_0xDCB8F138B8651771_and_old_rev.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Continuation of my previous mail
Dear Rohit, I hope you're well. I get from your statement that you're angry about controversies of RMS and your decision to install a malware named Windows is coming from that. I believe after 25 of years of interaction with the GNU operating system and Linux kernel, you've understood that the philosophy of the free software is for everyone, not only RMS. Even if you hate RMS, you can love yourself, respect yourself, and be free from malware and proprietary software by using a libre operating system. Best. On 19/04/2021 18:36, Rohit Dutt via General GNU project and free software discussions wrote: Hi, This is Rohit D from another account. I just wanted to post, with a heavy heart despite everything, that I have removed Linux and installed Windows. I gave Linux 25 years of my life. RMS, please don't harm any women. And obviously this holds true of all the computing community and every human being in general. Bye. Sent using Zoho Mail -- Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com) Libre culture activist and privacy advocate PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771 OpenPGP_0xDCB8F138B8651771_and_old_rev.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
