Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico.
> For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his right to a
> fair trial.
Nobody is claiming Richard doesn't have the right for a fair trial. He
is still a human being, and every human being has such a right.
However, there is no trial here. There is just the statement that
RMS has been a very annoying person for the past several decades, and
that having him in a position of leadership, in the opinion of those
people that signed the letter, causes more harm than good.
*That is not a trial*. That is an opinion on the effects another
person's behavior has to a community. It is not a very positive opinion
about that person's behavior, and in that respect this may reflect on
RMS' reputation, but *a reputation is not something that is decided by
trial*. It is instead something that is decided by the common opinion of
all the people in the community.
A trial is meant to decide on who is to blame for something, and, if
that can be determined, what the appropriate punishment for the crime
Debian stating to the FSF that we would prefer not to have to deal with
RMS is not a punishment for RMS. It is not an assignment of blame. It is
instead Debian stating that we don't like something, and can they please
do something about the situation.
Debian deciding that we don't want to cooperate with the FSF anymore, to
the extent possible, if the FSF doesn't do what we ask of them, is not
us punishing the FSF. It is us deciding that between having to deal with
an organization with major organisational issues, in our opinion, and
having to figure out alternative options for some of the FSF software,
we would prefer the latter.
XKCD 1357 applies here, with s/free speech rights/rights to a fair
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy
-- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard