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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.