Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 05:07:59AM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2021, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against
> > Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the
> > board of the Free Software Foundation.
>
> Hi, please can you explain how this is significantly different from Proposal
> A "will not issue a public statement" and Proposal E "ambush mob"? Thanks.
It's very clearly and unambiguously stating a position against the witch-hunt
rather than just ducking for cover until the shitstorm has blown over.
It's also generic in that it doesn't require anyone to agree with any
particular reason or reasons to be opposed to the witch-hunt. It does not
require anyone to support Stallman, just be against this persecution of him
and the FSF. If you think it's a witch-hunt or vigilante mob and want Debian
to take a stance against it, then it doesn't matter WHY you think that, only
that you do. Even if you're unable to clearly articulate what it is about the
situation that bothers you.
tl;dr: skip the following. it's not neccesary for understanding my proposed
amendment, only my motivations for posting it.
My main reasons (which I do NOT expect anyone else to share 100% or even at
all) are:
1. Most importantly - what happens if the witch-hunt is successful and rms and
the entire FSF board are sacked/forced to resign? Who replaces them? Who gains
control over the FSF and the text of the GPL?
Unfortunately, the most likely - as in, almost certain - result is that it
will be the same corporate apparatchiks who have taken over pretty nearly all
other free software/open source organisations.
Don't be surprised if that happens and a "GPL v4" comes out in a year or so
that is watered down to be like the LGPL or, worse, a BSD-like license. And
remember that this won't affect just future projects using GPLv4, it will also
affect existing projects that kept the "or any later version" clause.
The GPL needs a stubborn, uncompromising idealist like Stallman to champion
it - someone who can't be bribed or coerced or corrupted or conned. Even if
he is unlikable and repulsive. It's too important to allow corporations to
get control of it. Whatever his faults, Stallman can be trusted not to fuck
this up, or to fuck over the free software community.
Do you want Microsoft, or Google, or Apple, or IBM/Redhat or any other
corporation to gain control of the GPL? I certainly don't.
IMO, the whole issue is an opportunistic hostile takeover. It failed the
first time around, but now Stallman has given them another opportunity by
re-joining the board of his foundation.
2. Stallman's words about the Epstein/Minksy incident were grotesquely twisted
and misrepresented - he did not say anything like what vice.com and others
claimed he said.
Everything about the incident has been misrepresented - even to the point
where some claim that Minsky had sex with Epstein's victim, when the victim
herself did not claim that AND at least one witness, Greg Benford, said Minsky
declined. The criminals in the situation were Epstein and his enablers - not
Minsky for being propositioned and declining, and not Stallman for defending
his dead friend Minsky.
3. None of what Stallman has said or done is bad enough to justify
kicking him out of the organisation he founded. Even if you believe the
misrepresentations, they're nowhere near bad enough for that.
4. Stallman has several personal habits that are repulsive, and he's not
very likeable. I know this from my own (very limited) personal interactions
with him. That is also not a good enough reason to kick him out of the
organisation he founded. He's socially clueless, not predatory or malevolent.
Discrimination against and bullying of neuro-diverse people with repulsive
personal habits is still discrimination and bullying.
5. Re-electing Stallman back on to the FSF board is not sufficient reason to
sack the entire board, or even just those who voted in favour of it.
6. People who find Stallman too repulsive to tolerate are at liberty to create
their own Stallman-Free Free Software Foundation (SFFSF). They don't need to
kick him and the other board members out of the FSF and gain control over the
text of the GNU GPL (unless, you know, gaining control is the actual point,
which it is).
7. Vigilante mobs and witch hunts disgust, horrify, and terrify me. Mobs are
easily manipulated and have no reasoning - they are what causes paediatricians
to be attacked in their homes and at work because their job title sounds
somewhat similar to paedophile, because mobs are too fucking stupid to
understand the common Greek roots of some English words.
If a mob wants to do something, or is being manipulated into doing something,
then everyone has a duty as a rational human being to resist, not jump on the
fucking bandwagon.
Debian should not join the mob. Debian is, or should be, better than that.
8. probably other reasons, but i'm already exhausted and need to rest.
NOTE: I do not care if anyone agrees with any of my reasons or not. I'm not
here to debate them, debating them will not change my mind or yours and would
be a waste of what little energy I have. I especially do not have the energy
required to get drawn into some bullshit pedantic squabble about trivia as
"debates" on the internet so often do. That's WHY I initially posted a simple
amendment without any explicit reasons for it.
My response to anyone trying to drag me into a debate over my reasons is
"That's nice. Believe whatever you want to believe, I don't care. Have a nice
day". I'm pre-empting that now so I don't have to bother tomorrow. Please
feel free to use this response yourself if you're tempted to debate my reasons
with me. I insist.
craig
Reply to: