RMS Beatdown

jitterist

Every single word in any language is made up, so this one is in good company.
If you want to stop supporting the FSF, that is absolutely fine. Stop sending them money, stop buying their products (if they have any), stop reading their blogs etc.
But telling them how to run their organization and downright DEMANDING the removal of anyone not in line with the online mob's politics, now that is the essence of the so-called cancel culture.

If he has done something illegal call the cops. If you think what he said should be illegal, become a politician. Or, if those things are too hard, just demand your very own kind of justice on the internet.

DataDrake

downhill What reasons? Based on a bit of research I've done, he did nothing to warrant being removed.

Apparently not enough to read the Appendix It's all laid out pretty well there regarding the Fall of 2019.

downhill You may disagree with what he said, but disagreement is hardly a reason, in my opinion anyway, to remove someone from a board.

The FSF exists for the sole purpose of advocating as our representatives in various legal and political capacities. I absolutely believe that you have the right to criticize your representatives and advocate for their replacement when they no longer serve as a representative of your views. RMS' personal views can and will be used against him when representing us and that weakens the FSF's image when representing us. He doesn't get a free pass just because he shares other views that I agree with.

downhill It's cancel culture, plain and simple, in my opinion.

And I disagree. Someone who is unable to put aside their personal views as private ones for the sake of the people or cause they are trying to represent is unfit to act in a leadership role. Even moreso if they are unable to articulate their personal views in a way that isn't readily misinterpreted by other people.

downhill Since there was no good reason for RMS's removal back in 2019

I've already indicated otherwise. What I have asked from the very beginning of this is "what good reason is there to bring him back?"

downhill what amends or apologies are you looking for?

Would you like the long list or the short list? At the very least:

RMS should publicly acknowledge that he understands how people may have misinterpreted his statements and explain his actual position given as much time as is needed (if that is what actually happened). But he insists that he has done nothing to apologize for, despite how many people he has offended.
RMS has shown a repeated inability to articulate his thoughts without offending people. I would expect him to seek some level of professional help to improve this.
The FSF should have provided a public statement of their justifications for bringing RMS back, addressing the reasons he resigned in the first place.

jitterist Every single word in any language is made up, so this one is in good company.

Strawman.

jitterist If you want to stop supporting the FSF, that is absolutely fine. Stop sending them money, stop buying their products (if they have any), stop reading their blogs etc.
But telling them how to run their organization and downright DEMANDING the removal of anyone not in line with the online mob's politics, now that is the essence of the so-called cancel culture.

No, it's the essence of advocating a position that you hold be also held by the organization that represents you. The FSF isn't some private corporation churning out trinkets to buy. They are a legal and professional organization charged with representing their supporters in legal and political arenas. We are well within out rights to petition against their actions when they fail to represent us and our interests.

jitterist If he has done something illegal call the cops.

No one here has suggested illegal activities, simply immoral ones.

jitterist If you think what he said should be illegal, become a politician.

Again, we aren't advocating that. We are simply trying to hold people accountable for their actions and to make appropriate amends in the name of not tarnishing the image of the whole movement. This is the absolute bare minimum we should expect of a politician or legal representative when they mess up.

jitterist Or, if those things are too hard, just demand your very own kind of justice on the internet.

Dude...this is exactly what we are doing.

EbonJaeger

jitterist In addition to all that DataDrake said above, how else do you propose we try to hold people accountable for what they say and do? Because that is what people are trying to do here. In fact, that's what people are trying to do whenever I see the "cancel culture" phrase invoked. It seems to me that it's only ever used when people don't want to see people held accountable.

jitterist

DataDrake Strawman.

Care to elaborate? I was pointing out the fallacy of calling a word "made up". Maybe you could provide an explanation of which words are or are not made up.

DataDrake No, it's the essence of advocating a position that you hold be also held by the organization that represents you. The FSF isn't some private corporation churning out trinkets to buy. They are a legal and professional organization charged with representing their supporters in legal and political arenas. We are well within out rights to petition against their actions when they fail to represent us and our interests.

So if an organization represents a heterogenous body of people, it is intrinsically fucked, unless it

1) Does not take a stance on anything political/sociological (I am actually ok with that, no more COCs)
2) Gets rid of the user base AND employees that are not in line with its politics

Great stuff, let us have silo for every opinion on every matter ever. I am sure that is the way to catapult FOSS onto the next stage.
I wonder what your stance is on the letter in defense of RMS, subscribed by 4000+ users. Do you celebrate it as an expression of the people's will to have their interests represented?

DataDrake No one here has suggested illegal activities, simply immoral ones.

How immoral exactly do you have to be to get fired? Another problem is, immorality is an extremely vague concept. You can claim to not like what he said (few people did), but please do not act like you have some cosmic truth on your side.

DataDrake Again, we aren't advocating that. We are simply trying to hold people accountable for their actions and to make appropriate amends in the name of not tarnishing the image of the whole movement. This is the absolute bare minimum we should expect of a politician or legal representative when they mess up.

What movement exactly are you speaking of? I thought we were talking about a legal entity.
Also, I am not sure why anyone on the FSF would answer to you to be "held accountable". If you give them money, you can stop paying them. If provide labour, you can stop doing so. Those are actions that mildly touch on the concept of "accountability".
Organizing a mob on the internet is the digital equivalent of gathering up the townsfolk with good old torch and pitchfork.

Here is a thought experiment: A leader of an organization similar to the FSF publicly states that men are privileged and overpaid. 2 days later the leader gets fired due to pressure from social/public platforms. I guess you are perfectly fine with this scenario?

DataDrake Dude...this is exactly what we are doing

I do not recall asking for anybody to get fired or shunned.

kevr

EbonJaeger Unless you are a member of the FSF, who granted your right to hold them to account? They make their decisions, you decide whether or not to support them. I write to my Member of the UK Parliament on a regular basis so that they know that not everyone agrees with their political decisions and views. I write to my MP in private in the hope they understand other opinions and views. That's how we do things in a modern society. Healthy change comes slowly by discussion in the real world but the very vocal tech savvy community seem demand change now, unconditionally, hence the Pichfork Petition we see here.
When RMS is long gone, expect another mob to demand the breakup of the FSF because they harboured a supposedly misogynist, ableist, transphobe and enabler of child abuse. Next we cancel an organization that didn't disavow RMS publicly enough; which one organization publicly stated that it signed for that very reason. This behaviour is cancerous and it never ends. Expecting all members of any organization to all have the correct personal views is unachievable. Correct in this case is an entirely subjective word.

Online beat-downs = BAD
Healthy discussion and voting with your pocket = GOOD

Dinimixis_DEMZ

After reading all of this, I feel augmented by how they have been taking control of the conformants of the project.

is gratifying as they take into account the true responsibility of the holders/creators of a project.

pragmatism is the right one, as some take very much to the chest the depositions of the leaders of several projects by telling the public their position at all.

so, that the part in which they indicate that "it is only digested by so conformates, and these are partners, from those who document, to those who programs", makes me very happy.

Despite all of it is polemic, it is only becoming known as an alternative for polemics. thanks to Budgie.

There's a lot of discontent and worries.

but, uh, to say, your approach to the subject is the right one.

in my case support stallman because it is said that they want to change the gpl to make it more open.

according to rule 9 of the 0pensource. to derive and take advantage.

But, honestly, they've got speculation, it's still a possibility.

But, as it should be, everyone should be free to think and not be rid of something in particular.

recalc, support rms for its support of free software.

Although, I must admit, what happened with the alleged harassment from rms is something, they haven't put it into subjection.

It's complex, but it's not polemic, it's very curious.

Is it done because it is understood that gnu and the entire free software community are threatened?

Or to support who I believe everything despite so mistakes as a human being?

Dinimixis_DEMZ

Although, since I read that it is only private and the depositions are by so conformantes calms me.

It only has a nice atmosphere, despite everything.

I hope to be of help, and not generate more polemic, as.

Apparently, here they know how to correctly direct a project.

JoshStrobl

Removed Spanish parts. Please use English, thanks. Though I don't really understand anything you're saying, sorry.

DataDrake

jitterist Care to elaborate? I was pointing out the fallacy of calling a word "made up". Maybe you could provide an explanation of which words are or are not made up.

No you were throwing out his entire argument by making a broad generalization that doesn't actually change the substance of his argument. Cancel culture has a few different meanings, with different uses. General cancel culture applies to the practice of holding public people accountable for their public actions and those consequences often include a punishment which results in some part of their public life being taken away. Some radicals of the liberal persuasion operate under the guise of cancel culture to inflict harm on people they disagree with. Whereas the conservative side of things tend to view cancel culture as an attack on their way of life, while also attributing far more events to cancel culture than are actually reasonable (e.g. Dr. Suess books being removed from publication, Mr. Potato Head getting rebranded, etc).

jitterist So if an organization represents a heterogenous body of people, it is intrinsically fucked, unless it

1) Does not take a stance on anything political/sociological (I am actually ok with that, no more COCs)
2) Gets rid of the user base AND employees that are not in line with its politics

This isn't what I said at all. It's impossible to represent a heterogeneous body homogeneously, but it's not impossible to represent a heterogeneous body fairly. And a big part of that is listening to and addressing the concerns of the represented. It's also a necessary part of any organization to police its members public behavior when it affects that organization. Sometimes that means removing them, other times it means having those members take personal responsibility at improving themselves before being allowed to continue being involved in the organization. When a person is unwilling to do the latter, the former is the only other option.

jitterist Great stuff, let us have silo for every opinion on every matter ever. I am sure that is the way to catapult FOSS onto the next stage.

Again, not at all what I said.

jitterist I wonder what your stance is on the letter in defense of RMS, subscribed by 4000+ users. Do you celebrate it as an expression of the people's will to have their interests represented?

I actually don't have a problem with other people having an opposing viewpoint and expressing it. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, that I can't disagree with it, or that I can't act in my own interests regarding it.

jitterist How immoral exactly do you have to be to get fired? Another problem is, immorality is an extremely vague concept. You can claim to not like what he said (few people did), but please do not act like you have some cosmic truth on your side.

That's up to the people running the organization, the organizations' values, and the willingness of the person in question to make amends and seek personal improvement, as I've already stated multiple times. Please, don't pretend like you have some cosmic truth on your side either.

jitterist What movement exactly are you speaking of? I thought we were talking about a legal entity.

The Free Software Movement, duh. You know, the people being represented by the FSF.

jitterist Also, I am not sure why anyone on the FSF would answer to you to be "held accountable". If you give them money, you can stop paying them. If provide labour, you can stop doing so. Those are actions that mildly touch on the concept of "accountability".

Me personally? Of course not. Several thousand people voicing the same opinion? That would be suicide to ignore. You are conflating personal accountability with representative accountability. As someone being represented by the FSF, my personal accountability is in ensuring that my interests are being represented. Subsequently, the FSF is accountable to fairly representing the interests of the people they represent. This isn't rocket science. It's just politics.

jitterist Organizing a mob on the internet is the digital equivalent of gathering up the townsfolk with good old torch and pitchfork.

You see a mob, I see people marching for what they believe. A mob has the intent to actually hurt people and property, which is not the same thing at all.

jitterist Here is a thought experiment: A leader of an organization similar to the FSF publicly states that men are privileged and overpaid. 2 days later the leader gets fired due to pressure from social/public platforms. I guess you are perfectly fine with this scenario?

Putting aside for a moment that that wouldn't happen because that viewpoint isn't considered harmful because its actually true, I would still go back to my normal expectations. Did they apologize for saying something that was considered offensive? Did they make any attempt to understand why it is offensive? Have they pledged to improve themselves so as to not be offensive in the future? If the answer to any of these questions is "no", then they haven't demonstrated that they actually learned their lesson and they can certainly be fired over it.

jitterist I do not recall asking for anybody to get fired or shunned.

You do understand that "we" doesn't contain "you" 100% of the time, yeah? "We" as in the people who signed the letter was obviously what I meant.

DataDrake

@Dinimixis_DEMZ I think I get the gist of what you are trying to say. And I guess I should clarify on a few points.

Despite what people seem to think, I don't hate RMS. There are a great many things I don't like about the man, but I'm not trying to ruin his life. We are all grateful for his contributions to FOSS, but that gratitude doesn't mean he gets a free pass for the rest of his life when he does screw up, doubly-so when it is so public. He can redeem himself, but he has to choose to do so.
Personally, my greater frustration is with the FSF because they seem to either (1) not care about RMS mistakes or (2) seem to be too short-sighted to see how the decision to bring RMS back would backfire. (1) is the worst case because it means they are his enablers and (2) means they aren't good at being political. In either case, it's clear that the FSF could use better leadership.
Given the opportunity and necessity, I would sign similar petitions for other people who make these kinds of mistakes and aren't held accountable. Not because I'm vindictive or get some sick enjoyment out of this, but because this is the standard I feel our representatives should be held to and I believe it is our duty as the represented to police our representatives.

And one last time because it seems some people haven't understood this: These are my views and mine alone. They are not the official stance of the Solus Project nor its other members. I signed the open letter as an individual, but noted my involvement with Solus for identification because there are literally hundreds of Bryan Meyers (and related spellings) in the world, but only one associated with Solus.

Staudey

People on both sides are just publicly voicing their opinions and the FSF is free to react to that as they please. Seems like healthy discourse. It's not like anyone has a gun to their head, so I don't understand what the problem with either open letter is.
Personally I haven't really researched that matter too much. I have huge respect for RMS for staying true to his convictions in free software matters, even when it's highly impractical, almost insane. On the other hand I've seen some snippets of what he said on other topics, and if they weren't somehow ripped completely out of context, then there are serious problems with his moral compass. But again, I'd have to read a lot more about this to talk about it with confidence.

arcooke

Here are some of my thoughts on the RMS drama. Not a huge fan of the guy and there's a lot I disagree with him about... but I think the events in 2019 were blown WAY out of proportion.

Hear me out and I think you will see where I'm coming from with this. I will break down the accusations lobbed at him in the Appendix.

I don't think RMS was ever actually advocating for CP.. he stated some controversial views on how some of our laws were structured. Are his comments questionable? Kinda. Would it be better for a public figure to keep these kinds of comments to themselves? 100% yes. Did he deserve to be publicly shamed and have his reputation and career destroyed? I'm not so sure about that.

If you throw emotion out the window and take a rational look at the things he said .. I don't think they were as outrageous people made them out to be.

He compares United States law to Sudanese law in saying that “US laws that define ‘rape’ to include voluntary sex with under N years of age (where N varies)” and that “both laws falsify the meaning of ‘rape.’”
...
RMS decries that this is not “sexual assault” because “‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence”

Again, if we're being rational and not emotional here.. he's technically not wrong. I've always thought it was unusual that our laws call it "statutory rape" when it isn't technically rape (and likewise with "assault"). Child abuse seems like it would be a more fitting term, no? I think all RMS was saying was that a consenting adult involved with a consenting adolescent (regardless of legality) isn't a "rapist". RMS didn't say it was right or wrong to be in such a relationship, just that the the "rape" and "assault" labels aren't appropriate for the crime of consensual sex with a minor.

People interpreted his statements as if he was defending pedos, but I don't think that was his intention. He was talking about issues with the legal language used.

Of a woman having sex with a minor, he said “I wish an attractive woman had ‘abused’ me that way when I was 14.”

Damn near every 14-year old boy fantasized about banging a hot teacher at some point or another. Go read Reddit someday when yet another article is published about a female teacher having sex with a male student. You'll find dozens of people saying "where were all horny teachers when I was in school?!"

He directly addressed child pornography by saying that “making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos.”

He was talking about a f*cking CARTOON. He was not talking about pictures of naked human children. RMS even went so far as to say drawing cartoons like this should be a crime. This was so far out of context in the letter, that I'd almost consider it a malicious attack against him. I'm not defending people who collect pictures of underage cartoons, but this had nothing at all to do with actual CP of a real person.

He referred to people deciding to “carry fetuses with Down’s syndrome to term” as “perverse” and said that there is “nothing virtuous” in “[increasing] the number of people that have Down’s syndrome.”

Ok... so RMS is pro-abortion? Why is it OK for millions of people to support abortion for ANY reason as a womens' rights issue, but it's not OK for RMS to suggest abortion for one specific type of child with a serious developmental issue?

I'm personally against abortion in almost all cases, so I don't even agree with RMS myself, and yet even I can see the hypocrisy here.

RMS has spent years on a campaign against using people’s correct pronouns. This is poorly disguised transphobia.

Ding ding ding. There it is. I think that's why he was targeted. Any deviation from the woke narrative on gender identity and you're done for. Textbook cancel culture. And I say that as someone with a trans brother who I am very close with.

Read his article about pronouns.. it isn't "transphobic". He's addressing grammatical issues. He's actually SUGGESTING ways to make gender-neutrality fit better into the English language.

If I'm wrong about any of this, and RMS is a legit pedo sympathizer, then I'll eat my words. But I simply do not think that's the case.

Anyway, whatever, it's not my battle. I just don't think the guy quite deserved what happened to him and I don't want to see anyone falsely accused for something, no matter who they are. Just my 2 cents.

Now to revisit the text of the new petition:

Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in the free software community for a long time. He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety.

A "dangerous force" -- dangerous how?
Misogynist -- I'll give the benefit of the doubt on this one, but I think this has more to do with growing up in a different generation, rather than RMS being some on some kind of vendetta against women.
Ableist -- Abortion for any reason = totally fine! Abortion for one specific reason = ableist. Um.. ok?
Transphobic -- I'm not seeing anything "transphobic" about his writings.
"Other serious accusations of impropriety" -- Keyword: accusations.

DataDrake

arcooke Child abuse seems like it would be a more fitting term, no? I think all RMS was saying was that a consenting adult involved with a consenting adolescent (regardless of legality) isn't a "rapist".

Consent is the issue here. The legal definition of consent is partially defined by age to ensure that both parties have achieved a level of development and experience where they are most likely to be able to make these decisions. The farther you get from this age, the more likely it is that they do not or cannot understand what they are consenting to. There are of course other scenarios in which consent may be legally limited to further extend this protection, especially when it comes to mental disorders.

Under the law, if you cannot legally give consent, it doesn't matter if you voluntarily agree. You still have not given consent. The lack of consent is precisely what makes it rape or assault in these situations. RMS disagrees on the grounds that he believes that the act of agreeing is sufficient grounds for consent. Moreover, he believes that laws cannot and should not limit the ability of an individual to consent. This is what is problematic. This is what people went after him for. And regardless of his intent, this is the identical argument made my pedophiles.

arcooke Damn near every 14-year old boy fantasized about banging a hot teacher at some point or another. Go read Reddit someday when yet another article is published about a female teacher having sex with a male student. You'll find dozens of people saying "where were all horny teachers when I was in school?!"

Fantasizing isn't the same asking on said fantasy. No one is trying to make thinking illegal, but the act itself is illegal.

arcooke He was talking about a f*cking CARTOON. He was not talking about pictures of naked human children. RMS even went so far as to say drawing cartoons like this should be a crime. This was so far out of context in the letter, that I'd almost consider it a malicious attack against him.

Even if he is just talking about a cartoon, consider the reality of this statement. He is saying that owning something that was made illegally is not a crime, even though the act of making it is a crime. In the scenario where something was illegal and is now legal, this is fairly common amongst collectors, especially museums. But in the situation where something was legal and is now illegal, this becomes mush more problematic. Should a pedophile be allowed to keep photos or CP cartoons purely on the basis that they did not create them? Bullshit. You'd just end up with groups of pedophiles who "trade" these materials with eachother such that authorship is untraceable. Meanwhile, they still get to enjoy it. That's not OK.

arcooke Ok... so RMS is pro-abortion? Why is it OK for millions of people to support abortion for ANY reason as a womens' rights issue, but it's not OK for RMS to suggest abortion for one specific type of child with a serious developmental issue?

A woman having the right to an abortion as a means of bodily autonomy is not at all the same as making the decision to abort based on genetic or developmental abnormality. The former is an assertion over a woman's right to be pregnant when she wants to be. Deciding to abort a fetus based on a development or genetic basis is EUGENICS and we are trying to get rid of that shit.

arcooke Ding ding ding. There it is. I think that's why he was targeted. Any deviation from the woke narrative on gender identity and you're done for. Textbook cancel culture. And I say that as someone with a trans brother who I am very close with.

Nope. This is just one of many issues. It happens to currently be very politically charged, but it was hardly the sole reason. I have trans friends and coworkers and they are also upset by this, so it's gone beyond whether or not he intended it or not. He still should at least acknowledge how he might have been misinterpreted.

arcooke Read his article about pronouns.. it isn't "transphobic". He's addressing grammatical issues. He's actually SUGGESTING ways to make gender-neutrality fit better into the English language.

If he can't articulate this in a way that people don't find offensive, intent is irrelevant. He has a long-running pattern of not understanding the impact of his words and it has been especially problematic these past years.

DataDrake

arcooke A "dangerous force" -- dangerous how?

Literally answered in the next sentence...

arcooke Misogynist -- I'll give the benefit of the doubt on this one, but I think this has more to do with growing up in a different generation, rather than RMS being some on some kind of vendetta against women.

I won't. Not when I hear first-hand accounts from women who literally warded him off by keeping potted plants in their offices, using his phobia as the only means of getting him to leave them alone. I don't think it's a vendetta, but he clearly doesn't know how to respect boundaries or recognize when his advances aren't wanted.

arcooke Ableist -- Abortion for any reason = totally fine! Abortion for one specific reason = ableist. Um.. ok?

Down's syndrome is classified as a disability. Suggesting that a fetus be aborted simply because it will develop this condition is absolutely a form of prejudice.

arcooke Transphobic -- I'm not seeing anything "transphobic" about his writings.

Just because you don't see it this way doesn't mean that no one exists who does. I can absolutely see how his writing and their potential to do harm would be viewed as transphobic.

arcooke "Other serious accusations of impropriety" -- Keyword: accusations.

If someone has been demonstrated to be wrongfully accused multiple times, they are being targeted. If someone has been accused of doing something many times and it hasn't been proven other than first-hand accounts, that doesn't mean it isn't real. It means that if it is real, he hasn't been caught by a third-party or that people are protecting him. At some point though, if something smells funny enough times, there's a very good chance there's something to it.

arcooke

DataDrake Fair enough. Maybe I need to read more into it. You seem to know more about allegations than I do. The appendix does seem to take some things out of context, or stretch them a bit.

DataDrake

arcooke To be fair, facts matter up to a certain point when it comes to public drama like this and then feelings/reactions play into it. I made my decision based on the facts, but I'd point out a few observation about why reactions are just as important here:

If RMS is frequently taken out of context, is there really nothing he can do to fight this? If there is, he doesn't seem to try or think he should even need to. Which makes him his own worst enemy when it comes to being a public person.
If things seem stretched a bit, that's usually down to interpretation and/or bias. Which is something that RMS could stand to consider a bit more when sharing his opinions. He seems to think his words only have one interpretation and that everyone should intuit that. That's fine as an ideal, but as someone in the public eye it's important to be pragmatic too and take the time to anticipate, understand, and address this subjectivity.
If RMS is this bad at staying out of trouble, isn't it possible that public life is just not for him? He's already done more than enough for Free Software. I don't think anyone really expects him to go around evangelizing until the day he dies. Surely there's retirement? To say nothing of being able to easily schedule dozens of talks each year because people always want to see him. Or how about writing books?
How is it that the FSF didn't prepare for this backlash? I know that RMS jumped the gun on the announcement, but do they really not have any PR folks that were planning for this before they even asked him back? Where are the posts on the FSF site in his defense? Either they knew this would happen and don't care or they didn't even consider the possibility and planned nothing. In either case, doesn't that point to bad leadership?

arcooke

RMS may or may not be a dirtbag, I really have no idea. I've only listened to his talks on free software, never dug into him much further than that. The accusations I saw weren't all that convincing (enough to warrant ruining a guy's reputation and career anyway). Bottom line, I just don't want to see anyone hurt unless it's absolutely deserved. These are some major accusations.

EDIT: oops I posted that before reading your reply.

kaktuspalme

My main concern about this is that everything has to be public in todays society and so is this letter. If everyone would have sent their disagreements privately to the FSF I would be fine with all of this. But because it's all held in public the damage to RMS is beyond his position in the FSF. Everyone who thinks about engaging RMS will probably fear that the same happens to them. And yes that reminds me of the so called "cancel culture".

At the same time I think it's not okay to go after the people who signed that letter. @DataDrake and @JoshStrobl have good arguments and it's their personal decision.

Xrey274

I don't agree with the opinions of Josh and DataDrake, but I do respect their right of an opinion. I also respect that they signed it representing themselves and not Solus.

JoshStrobl

Okay, this thread is getting a bit out of hand. I appreciate that you all voiced your opinions, but both Bryan and I have discussed this at ad nauseam. You are welcome to disagree with our decision to sign it or identifying ourselves as members of Solus, which is pertinent information in the free software / open source community (especially for Bryan who unfortunately has a more common name 😛).

If you do not agree with the fact we signed it or the fact we are in a leadership position and do not share your viewpoint on the matter, you don't have to engage with us on it. If you don't like the idea that we will represent the Solus community and project (not talking about this specific matter), which we are in leadership positions of, you don't even have to use the operating system. My viewpoint on RMS as it pertains to the open letter is not going to change, so there isn't really any point to bikeshedding on it.

Thanks.

« Previous Page