Quoting from their website, "The FSF is a charity with a worldwide mission to advance software freedom."
The question for the FSF Board isn't whether Stallman deserves to be punished, or anything - they're not a court of law. The question for the FSF Board is whether adding Stallman to the board accomplishes their mission of advancing software freedom.
The FSF is not the Stallman Foundation (the way that there's a Gates Foundation or a Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative or whatever), whose goal would be to support Stallman in his works and in making the changes he wants to see in the world. It has a specific mission, and the question isn't whether Stallman is so bad that he deserves to be excluded, it's whether associating themselves with Stallman helps them achieve that goal.
Given how much of the free software movement he has alienated, including past FSF staff, past FSF board members, and a number of present and former GNU contributors, as well as other organizations like Software Freedom Conservancy that work closely with the FSF and defend the GPL and software freedom, it seems very unlikely that it does.
> The FSF is not the Stallman Foundation (the way that there's a Gates Foundation or a Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative or whatever), whose goal would be to support Stallman in his works and in making the changes he wants to see in the world.
I once heard the folks at Penny Arcade say that they specifically made Child's Play an independent organization so that even if they happen to do something stupid that ruins their own reputation(s), that the charity could continue on doing good regardless.
It hasn't been since at least fall 2019, when he stepped down. He hasn't been involved (at least on paper!) for over a year now, and the FSF has presumably been functioning between then and last Saturday.
It hasn't been since whenever Stallman's rider started including explicit instructions that his speaking fees should be sent to his personal mailing address and made out to his personal bank account, not the FSF treasury, not even to his personal assistant employed by the FSF. https://github.com/ddol/rre-rms/blob/master/rider.txt#L725-L...
And maybe it is in practice despite all that, but should it be? That's not their mission statement, and I think, for instance, that very few software authors would have been willing to say "or, at your option, any later version published by the Stallman Foundation" - let alone transfer their copyrights to the Stallman Foundation. Free software developers including myself entrusted the FSF with the ability to control our work precisely because the FSF was not just one guy, it was an organization that claimed to represent the entire free software movement.
So... You suddenly realized the value you handed off, and are annoyed because you can't take them back? I mean, personally, I don't think IP rights (if we have to suffer them to exist) should be transferrable. It should either be utilized by the person who did the work, or w
waived into the public domain.
Nevertheless, you never had any guarantee FSF would always be run by people, or run how, you like. You knew this. You did it anyway. What is it they say today? "There are consequences."
You can't take it back. Once it's out there, it's out there. That was the point! Nor does it at all Change that Stallman has done absolutely nothing to deserve ousting, nor does his reinstatement detract from FSF or it's mission.
Looked into the rider; good for him; he's bringing it in, he should get a choice in where it goes. Also, makes me wonder why. Given Stallman's dedication, I have to wonder what the Foundation has been up to that's got him feeling like he's got to take care of himself first, but heck, maybe he just got tired of having to rely on the charity of others? I know in his position, (particularly nowadays) I'd not feel a great degree of trust in the face of my peers.
I'm just in awe of the fact he's even gone back, and throughout the entire thing kept advocating for FSF. That's commitment.
After thumbing through the Twitter thread, came across this gem:
>I worked at the FSF from 2015-2018 & was shop steward for a while. I recall having a months (MONTHS) long conversation with ED John Sullivan about why racist & sexist 'hacker humor' from the 90s needed to be removed from http://gnu.org. rms didn't get why it was harmful.
So... Someone had a subculture clash, and totally failed to attain enlightenment? Or to even appreciate the importance of maintaining a historical record to change and develop over time?
Seriously, this sounds like the kind of person who'd advocate having all old periodicals available in libraries re-written to the moral standards of today to protect the sensibilities of the youth.
The problem I have sympathizing with all of this is that if these same exact circumstances happened to any other member of the FSF, I'd be in the same uproar. You don't hang someone out to dry because people got hysterical because someone couldn't read, or because other people don't like that someone else is using their right to speak their mind.
The question for the FSF Board isn't whether Stallman deserves to be punished, or anything - they're not a court of law. The question for the FSF Board is whether adding Stallman to the board accomplishes their mission of advancing software freedom.
The FSF is not the Stallman Foundation (the way that there's a Gates Foundation or a Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative or whatever), whose goal would be to support Stallman in his works and in making the changes he wants to see in the world. It has a specific mission, and the question isn't whether Stallman is so bad that he deserves to be excluded, it's whether associating themselves with Stallman helps them achieve that goal.
Given how much of the free software movement he has alienated, including past FSF staff, past FSF board members, and a number of present and former GNU contributors, as well as other organizations like Software Freedom Conservancy that work closely with the FSF and defend the GPL and software freedom, it seems very unlikely that it does.