RMS and open letter

[Jos van den Oever]

On dinsdag 23 maart 2021 21:45:33 CET Nicolas Fella wrote:
> On 3/23/21 9:27 PM, Jos van den Oever wrote:
> > Hi Carl,
> > 
> > Does a free internet mean that people should be mobbed for their past
> > opinions? On proprietary Microsoft infrastructure no less.
> 
> People's actions have consequences and accountability is not mobbing.

Plastering the internet with personal attacks and organizing a mob to hurt 
someone is mobbing.

The proposed letter is pretty vile in my opinion. It is meant to incite, not 
to civilly address an issue.

The first line "Richard M. Stallman [..] has been a dangerous force in the 
free software community" is a vague statement that is only meant to convey a 
sentiment. The accusations are very broad and mostly are about opinions that 
he has. In some areas he is considered too liberal, in others as not liberal 
enough. Should we all stop discussing them for fear of being mobbed by the 
majority opinion?

It's fine to have a regular discussion about if someone is the best fit to 
lead an organization and FSF should have that discussion. But don't forget 
that FSF hold enormous power: they decide on the updates to the GNU licenses.

It is very attractive for opponents of Free Software to attack the FSF. The 
big tech companies would love to get rid of copy-left licenses. They prefer to 
take the content that people make and not give anything back but use it to 
continue to lock people in and oppress them.

The letter talks about 'his hurtful and dangerous ideology'. If RMS is known 
for any ideology, it's Free Software. The letter seems precisely worded to 
attack Free Software and copy-left licenses via Stallman.

It's easy to be outraged at many things and that can be an inspiration to make 
the world better, but reacting from the gut is not advisable.

If you care about the Free Software community, is signing this letter the best 
action to take?

> > Is it sensible of FSF to reinstate Stallman? I've no idea. But I do know
> > that we should not damage the FSF but support them. FSF are the stewards
> > of the software licenses on which KDE is built.
> 
> There are plenty of other organizations fostering the development of
> Open Source Software that are worth supporting instead.

KDE uses mostly GNU licenses. FSF is responsible for those licenses and can 
issue updates to them. If one wanted to sabotage the GNU licenses and the 
software such KDE and Linux that uses those licenses, sabotaging FSF is the 
way to go.

It is in the interest of KDE that FSF is healthy. If you think there are 
issues with it, find constructive ways to help solve them and consider what 
the agenda is of the people that are attacking the FSF.

⤳Jos
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20210323/e6f7d5d9/attachment.sig>