Re: RMS and open letter

[Philippe Cloutier]

Greetings Bernie,

Le 2021-03-24 à 23:00, Bernie Innocenti a écrit :

On 24/03/2021 21.19, Marco Martin wrote:

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:58 PM Nate Graham  wrote:

Accordingly, I feel that this letter ought to be revised to target the
FSF board specifically, without so much of a focus on RMS himself or
calling for blanket boycotts of the FSF (what would this even entail?).
I think probably everyone could get behind that.


Couldn't have said it better no matter how hard I had tried <3


I didn't sign because I found that letter unnecessarily inflammatory.

I would sign a revised version as proposed by Nate, without demanding 
the entire FSF board to resign or step back on their decision.



For reference, the Debian project is voting about the possibility of 
signing the above.





The best action we could take, individually, is canceling our FSF 
memberships and redirect our donations to organizations which are more 
directly beneficial to the cause of Free Software.



Exit or voice, once again. At the time you replied, exit probably seemed 
like the best choice indeed. However, with the following fresh 
announcement, the dilemma is much harder: 
https://www.fsf.org/news/update-on-work-to-improve-governance-at-the-fsf
Ironically, the FSF may be about to undergo its greatest evolution in 
decade(s).




Like, for example... KDE :-)



That's probably not a bad thing, though with its focus on desktop 
software, KDE can't be an equivalent to the FSF. An organization more 
comparable to the FSF would be Software in the Public Interest: 
https://www.spi-inc.org/
SPI's activity is very different from the FSF, SPI has its own issues, 
and is currently not associated with KDE. However, some KDE downstreams 
and GNUstep are.


--
Philippe Cloutier
http://www.philippecloutier.com

Re: RMS and open letter

[Kezi]

Hi Stefan

> Nazi comparisons dont have any place on this list or in KDE.

Please don't completely miss my point, I have not compared RMS to a Nazi or
assumed that someone else compared him to that, my point was that, given the
sheer size of this whole ordeal and public outrage, spanning different
communities, thousands of people, mass media; I would expect that, at least, the
target would be a Nazi, not a middle aged man with social difficulties

The letter is asking to "remove Richard M. Stallman from all leadership
positions", right in the title, why should someone be miscreated to the absolute
limit, given all kinds of names, and then removed from "all leadership
positions"? I would assume that at least he had abused this "leadership
positions" to do the evil, possibly serious intolerance or violence, like the
kind of people you don't want me to name, not for giving his (debatable)
opinion, having 0 social skills and missing some pronouns. That's completely
unfair

You can disagree on Stallman's governance on some technical details, or the fact
that he can be annoying, but this doesn't justify all of this

I'm sorry if saying the "n-word" hurt someone's sensibility but that was not the
point

> @keziolio123:
I should have fixed my email name

Il giorno gio 25 mar 2021 alle ore 15:12 Stefan Derkits
 ha scritto:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 25.03.21 14:23, keziolio...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Why should RMS be treated worse than a nazi, just because he excercised his
> > right of free speech, and his worldview is not directly and precisely 
> > aligned
> > with the latest left libertarian trends?
>
> I want to remind anyone to keep this discussion civil.
>
> No one is comparing RMS to a Nazi and especially is this letter
> definitly not treating him worse.
>
> And misgendering someone is not the latest left libertarian trend, if
> you do it on purpose (I don't know much what RMS did) then it is just
> disrespectfull.
>
> @keziolio123: Such a horrible comparison you are making, please keep
> your next mails to this mailinglist. Nazi comparisons dont have any
> place on this list or in KDE.
>
> Stefan
>
>
>

Re: RMS and open letter

[Stefan Derkits]

On 25.03.21 15:11, Stefan Derkits wrote:
> @keziolio123: Such a horrible comparison you are making, please keep
> your next mails to this mailinglist

correction:
"...keep your next mails to this mailinglist in a civil tone"

Stefan



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: RMS and open letter

[Stefan Derkits]

Hello,

On 25.03.21 14:23, keziolio...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why should RMS be treated worse than a nazi, just because he excercised his
> right of free speech, and his worldview is not directly and precisely aligned
> with the latest left libertarian trends?

I want to remind anyone to keep this discussion civil.

No one is comparing RMS to a Nazi and especially is this letter
definitly not treating him worse.

And misgendering someone is not the latest left libertarian trend, if
you do it on purpose (I don't know much what RMS did) then it is just
disrespectfull.

@keziolio123: Such a horrible comparison you are making, please keep
your next mails to this mailinglist. Nazi comparisons dont have any
place on this list or in KDE.

Stefan





OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: RMS and open letter

[keziolio...@gmail.com]

I'd like to point out that what started all of this, in 2019, was a large
misunderstanding, followed by a storm of out of context reporting and clickbait
titles. In the original email he was describing Giuffre as "willing" from the
point of view of Minsky, not Giuffre herself. This is not an important detail
in itself, everything that happened in that place was absolutely disgusting, but
it's important in this case because all the narrative around the "Stallman
defends Epstein", that exploded one year ago, was completely a lie, and it
completely derailed public discussion.

Regarding the open letter, it's clear as day that the tone is inflammatory, the
text is crafted to bring out emotion and anger, instead of discussion, KDE
should not taint its name with this kind of messaging.

There is an enormous, ever increasing, _multi-bilion-dollar_ economic interest
in discrediting the FSF and RMS, the GPL license, and the various softwares made
with that license, in favour of the usual tools and software promoted by FAANG,
with a total disregard to user freedom, privacy and ownership of our devices,
and what are we discussing today? About picking on Stallman because he used the
wrong pronouns?

What I find particularly disgusting is the use of pronouns like "we" or "us",
referring to the "free software community", in a letter published in GitHub by
Microsoft, authored by a Twitter-using, LinkedIn-having blue haired individual
that has never written a single line of code in their life. I'm prone to assume
that the authors and first supporters of the letter have no clue on who Stallman
is, what the FSF is or what it does, and the history and the reasoning behind
the GPL license they chose for that website.

Is Stallman the ideal representative for the Free Software community? Absolutely
not, not by a long shot.
Is there a person that has an higher moral standard on the things that _actually
matter_, like using and advocating for Free Software? Probably not.


Regarding the accusations, I am amazed that adult, sane people are pulling their
hairs on something like this. Stallman is very probably not neurotypical, this
has been known and argued about for years, I don't care if he describes himself
as neurotypical, while eating stuff from his foot in public.

We are literally arguing that a semi-autitic, 50/60yo individual had a
naive/wrong opinion on the internet. He doesn't have a criminal record, he has
not committed violence, he has not advocated for violence, he has not advocated
for discrimination, he just happened to write very stupid stuff about a topic
that hurts the feeling of some people, in a way that, even when taken literally,
causes no direct harm to anybody. The amount of mobbing that RMS received for
this is absolutely insane.

I'm, again, amazed that adult people waste their time arguing about what
Stallman should or shouldn't think, should or shouldn't say, retroactively
analyzing every mailing list post and website page about any phrase that is
worded naively or wrongly, then dumping it all, out of context, on a website.
The real world is bigger than the internet, we have billionaires and politicians
that were directly related to Epstein's actions.

The accusations about transphobia are nonsensical, the discussion is basically
around RMS not knowing or not using pronouns
(https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/issues/401),
again, adult, sane people wasting their time and crafting a letter, asking for
an entire board to resign for this?

Regarding the "misogynism", again, a neuro atypical 50-60yo guy that says
inappropriate stuff in public? more news at 11
If it's true that he seriously harassed girls, I'll let a judge decide on that,
and then I'll decide if I want to waste my time arguing about this on the
internet.

Regarding the "ableism"
1) I'd like for the authors of the letter to try what is like to have a child
affected by down syndrome
2) even if RMS said the most brutal and unethical thing (he absolutely did not),
why should I even care, as a free software user and ex FSF member, about the
opinion of RMS about those things? RMS is not the head of some hospital, a
support teacher, a nurse, the minister of health or something like that, he is
not in a Political or legislative position, why should we even waste time to
parse the opinion of Stallman in something that is not related to free software?
(this is valid for all the original criticism).

Unless we want to maliciously throw mud on his organization?

I'd like to ask everyone that signed or supported the letter about their opinion
on all those and other topics, and then ask them if they are prepared to
permanently lose their job and reputation if one of those opinions is not
sufficiently mainstream. Are you alright with that?

Why should RMS be treated worse than a nazi, just because he excercised his
right of free speech, and his worldview is not directly and precisely aligned
with the latest left libertarian trends

Re: RMS and open letter

[Sune Vuorela]

On 2021-03-24, Jos van den Oever  wrote:
> The GitHub organization that initiated the letter is anonymous:
>https://github.com/rms-open-letter

It might be anonymous in the organization, but the people behind it is
our friends at OSI, our friends in Gnome and our friends in Debian and
some others. It is the first group of people in the actual letter.

And during the last 24 hours, organizations like Gnome Foundation,
Mozilla, Tor Project and X.Org foundation has also signed it as
organizations.

The wording might not be perfect, and the execution also not perfect,
but it still conveys the important thing:

When our idols and leaders fail us, we should stop idolizing them and
let them lead us.

And the path to redemption is not staying low for a year or two hoping
we forget what has happened.

/Sune

Re: RMS and open letter

[Bernie Innocenti]

On 24/03/2021 21.19, Marco Martin wrote:

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:58 PM Nate Graham  wrote:

Accordingly, I feel that this letter ought to be revised to target the
FSF board specifically, without so much of a focus on RMS himself or
calling for blanket boycotts of the FSF (what would this even entail?).
I think probably everyone could get behind that.


Couldn't have said it better no matter how hard I had tried <3


I didn't sign because I found that letter unnecessarily inflammatory.

I would sign a revised version as proposed by Nate, without demanding 
the entire FSF board to resign or step back on their decision.


The best action we could take, individually, is canceling our FSF 
memberships and redirect our donations to organizations which are more 
directly beneficial to the cause of Free Software. Like, for example... 
KDE :-)


--
_ // Bernie Innocenti
\X/  https://codewiz.org/

Re: RMS and open letter

[Marco Martin]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:58 PM Nate Graham  wrote:
> Accordingly, I feel that this letter ought to be revised to target the
> FSF board specifically, without so much of a focus on RMS himself or
> calling for blanket boycotts of the FSF (what would this even entail?).
> I think probably everyone could get behind that.

Couldn't have said it better no matter how hard I had tried <3

-- 
Marco Martin

Re: RMS and open letter

[Marco Martin]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 1:53 PM Niccolò Ve  wrote:
> In answer to notm...@gmail.com:
> > and i don't really have anything against RMS per se...
> Even after reading the appendix? The part where he justifies child sex? or 
> underplayed rape? Or that saying that
> children with Down's syndrome are pets? Intentionally using the wrong 
> pronoun? Anything? I mean...

Actually (mea culpa) I did read the letter but not the appendix, so I
have to partly retract, sorry.
yes, his views on those sensitive matters *are* downright disgusting.
I still stand on the fact that the bottom of the matter is the lack of
transparency on how he was reinstated there without any community
driven process.

So, is not about asking to remove him with the same opaque process he
got in again, but about having a new board that gets actually voted in
by members.

-- 
Marco Martin

Re: RMS and open letter

[Nate Graham]

Hello all,

I would like to re-frame the discussion a little bit into terms we may 
all be more familiar with.


This letter we are being asked to sign is a lot like a controversial and 
flawed merge request: it contains elements that probably all of us agree 
with, elements that are controversial, and methods the address the 
problem that are controversial.


Thus many people who agree with the goal or some of the claims cannot 
approve the merge request (i.e. sign the letter) because of legitimate 
concerns about the implementation. This is a situation many of us run 
into daily, and we are familiar with the solution: revise the merge 
request (letter) so that it is less controversial but still accomplishes 
its stated aims. This way more people will be comfortable signing it and 
the discussion doesn't become a referendum on people's personal views on 
extremely sensitive subjects, which cannot end well.



So how would we revise this letter? We'd find the common ground that I 
hope all of us can agree on:


1. RMS is polarizing figure with close to zero social skills who has 
repeatedly put his foot in his mouth over a long period of time, making 
him a terrible ambassador for the movement he created.


2. The FSF board has exercised poor judgment and acted inappropriately 
both in reinstating RMS, and in even considering him for a public-facing 
leadership position in the first place.



Thus, the real problem here is the FSF's institutional structure and the 
judgment of its current members. A healthy body would have discarded RMS 
long ago due to his total lack of fitness for a public-facing leadership 
role. The fact that the opposite has happened shows that the FSF board 
does not function properly. The details of RMS's objectionable 
viewpoints are only relevant in that they serve to illustrate the 
board's poor judgment.


Accordingly, I feel that this letter ought to be revised to target the 
FSF board specifically, without so much of a focus on RMS himself or 
calling for blanket boycotts of the FSF (what would this even entail?). 
I think probably everyone could get behind that.


Nate

Re: RMS and open letter

[Niccolò Ve]

In answer to ren...@kde.org:
> It is quite clear that we are very far from a consensus on this
> question. So please, don't try to push KDE as an organization to sign
> such a letter. Each people can choose to sign it under its own name or
not.

Three or four people against a proposal hardly count as very far from a
consensus, just like
three or four people for it doesn't. And this is probably eV matters?
I guess an email should be sent to the ev ml and a vote should happen there.
I'd happily support such vote.

In answer to notm...@gmail.com:
> and i don't really have anything against RMS per se...
Even after reading the appendix ?
The part where he justifies child sex? or underplayed rape? Or that saying
that
children with Down's syndrome are pets? Intentionally using the wrong
pronoun? Anything? I mean...
I'm also not a big fan of the wording of the open letter; still, I feel
like we should kind of all agree that RMS did
and said extremely inappropriate things (to say the least).
Yes, I do agree on the "kinda misses the point" part. But I do not think
that saying "We don't want to have *anything*
to do with him or the org. that supports him, he's terrible" is on par with
what he said.

In answer to aben...@kde.org:
> If we would judge the legacy of a human being by his/her behaviour, there
would be no rock&roll.
We are not judging the legacy of RMS based on his behaviour, afaic. We are
saying that - given his behaviour - he is unfit
for such a position in the free software movement.

In answer to valorie.simmer...@gmail.com:
> Valorie, [...] against supporting pedophilia and pedophiles
I'm also very much against supporting offending pedophiles / pedophiles who
act on their desire.
I'm instead happy to support non-offending pedophiles / pedophiles who *do
not* act on their desire and never would.
Quite OT, but I think it's an important distinction to be made. Sorry for
nitpicking.

In answer to j...@vandenoever.info:
> The accusations are very broad and mostly are about opinions that
> he has
Accusations are quite specific and are about his behaviour and opinions.
Specific examples of opinions that make you
unfit for such a position are: justifying child sex, comparing down's
sindrome to being a pet. Specific examples of
behaviours that make un unfit for such a position: intentionally using a
wrong pronoun, mistreating women.
If all the above is to be forgotten because "it's not related to free
software", then we truly live in a sick world,
what can I say. But it certainly not "broad" nor "only about opinions".
> Is it sensible of FSF to reinstate Stallman? I've no idea.
*sigh*
> The letter talks about 'his hurtful and dangerous ideology'. If RMS is
known
> for any ideology, it's Free Software
and the whole pedophilia thing. You know, it's not like people did not
notice at all.
There are videos and articles about it. And I'm really not sure we want to
associate free software image with *that*.

[/rant]
Niccolò

Il giorno mer 24 mar 2021 alle ore 10:59 Marco Martin 
ha scritto:

> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:52 PM Eike Hein  wrote:
> >
> > With the dot-org hat on, I wish the Open Letter had a little bit more of
> a dot-org focus instead of focusing on the individual.
> >
> > What the current controversy highlights is that FSF board changes occur
> without an election and without significant transparency.[1]
> >
> > This is not KDE e.V.'s organizational setup, and it's also not the setup
> we would like to see in an organization that aims to centrally represent
> Free Software. It's also likely that the current and other situations would
> have been prevented by a healthier, more participatory board setup.
> >
> > I think the discussion of where to take the FSF (or representation for
> Free Software communities in general) next is what matters beyond the
> current moment in time. This is worth thinking about in the coming days,
> and also discussing with our partner dot-orgs.
>
> So much this!
> asking to remove rms because he had toxic behaviors is really a
> strawman argument and completely misses the point.
> RMS *is* unfit for that position, yes.
> He *did* say horrible horrible things, yes.
>
> but the question is: why didn't he have to run for election (and such,
> probably lose) in order to enter the board again?
>
> --
> Marco Martin
>


-- 
Niccolò Venerandi

Re: RMS and open letter

[Marco Martin]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:52 PM Eike Hein  wrote:
>
> With the dot-org hat on, I wish the Open Letter had a little bit more of a 
> dot-org focus instead of focusing on the individual.
>
> What the current controversy highlights is that FSF board changes occur 
> without an election and without significant transparency.[1]
>
> This is not KDE e.V.'s organizational setup, and it's also not the setup we 
> would like to see in an organization that aims to centrally represent Free 
> Software. It's also likely that the current and other situations would have 
> been prevented by a healthier, more participatory board setup.
>
> I think the discussion of where to take the FSF (or representation for Free 
> Software communities in general) next is what matters beyond the current 
> moment in time. This is worth thinking about in the coming days, and also 
> discussing with our partner dot-orgs.

So much this!
asking to remove rms because he had toxic behaviors is really a
strawman argument and completely misses the point.
RMS *is* unfit for that position, yes.
He *did* say horrible horrible things, yes.

but the question is: why didn't he have to run for election (and such,
probably lose) in order to enter the board again?

-- 
Marco Martin

Re: RMS and open letter

[Marco Martin]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:27 PM Jos van den Oever  wrote:
> "I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been
> advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept
> that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the
> same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming
> from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the
> mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally offensive."
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535390

very much this! (wether or not he says being on the spectrum doesn't
say much about his condition)

and i don't really have anything against RMS per se...
the real problem here is what Eike says:
his reinstatement should have happened after an actual election, is
the inner workings and transparency of FSF that's the problem

That open letter however completely misses the point, is at least as
toxic as any of the most unfortunate statements by rms and is
something that i would never ever want to see my name in the
signatures.

If anything it should ask and pressure for an open process for the
election of a new board, in which RMS or anybody else is free to put
forward their candidacy, and either get elected or rejected by the
election process


-- 
Marco Martin

Re: RMS and open letter

[renard]

Le 24/03/2021 à 07:36, Sune Vuorela a écrit :

On 2021-03-24, Valorie Zimmerman  wrote:

Thanks, Carl. I would like to point out that Carl posted his suggestion to
the individual people on this list. He did not propose that the KDE e.V.
officially take a stand.


Then I'd like to propose that KDE signs it.

/Sune


Hello;

It is quite clear that we are very far from a consensus on this 
question. So please, don't try to push KDE as an organization to sign 
such a letter. Each people can choose to sign it under its own name or not.


regards

--
Sébastien

Re: RMS and open letter

[Agustin Benito (toscalix)]

Hello,

If we would judge the legacy of a human being by his/her behaviour, there
would be no rock&roll.

Best Regards

Agustin Benito (toscalix)
KDE eV member
Profile: http://www.toscalix.com


On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:17 AM Jos van den Oever 
wrote:

> On woensdag 24 maart 2021 07:36:22 CET Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > On 2021-03-24, Valorie Zimmerman  wrote:
> > > Thanks, Carl. I would like to point out that Carl posted his
> suggestion to
> > > the individual people on this list. He did not propose that the KDE
> e.V.
> > > officially take a stand.
> >
> > Then I'd like to propose that KDE signs it.
>
> I propose that KDE does not sign it. KDE can make its own statement.
>
> It's easy to press 'like' or 'i agree' without carefully reading what you
> are
> agreeing to. And consider that by agreeing to this letter you are creating
> ammunition by which FOSS can be attacked.
>
> The statement that is currently proposed is an unproductive and divisive
> statement and has been engineered to be. Or it was written in a rage
> without
> much thought. At any rate, when you sign it, consider the full text.
>
> If you intend to sign that letter, please read it carefully and consider
> the
> blanket statements against Free Software in it. The letter was initiated
> by a
> former President of OSI [1].
>
> The GitHub organization that initiated the letter is anonymous:
>https://github.com/rms-open-letter
> The texts "We, the undersigned, believe in the necessity of digital
> autonomy"
> and "We believe in a present and a future where all technology empowers –
> not
> oppresses – people." sound hollow if it is hosted on GitHub, an
> undemocratic
> website where only the owners have influence on how it is run.
>
> Why is the letter hosted there? It it because no FOSS organization wanted
> to
> host a letter worded like that? I think so. Instead of getting a nuanced
> opinion this letter cherry-picks signatures from across communities.
>
> The letter says:
>
> "It is time for RMS to step back from the free software, tech ethics,
> digital
> rights, and tech communities"
>
> So sign this letter, you agree that he's an outcast.
>
> "We ask for contributors to free software projects to take a stand against
> bigotry and hate within their projects."
>
> So everyone that signs this bigoted and hateful letter should step away?
>
> In the coming days, there'll be statements by FOSS organizations, public,
> or
> directly to the board of the FSF about this surprising board addition. But
> let's make them better than the letter that is proposed here.
>
> ⤳Jos
>
> [1] https://opensource.org/node/1028
>

Re: RMS and open letter

[Jos van den Oever]

On woensdag 24 maart 2021 07:36:22 CET Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2021-03-24, Valorie Zimmerman  wrote:
> > Thanks, Carl. I would like to point out that Carl posted his suggestion to
> > the individual people on this list. He did not propose that the KDE e.V.
> > officially take a stand.
> 
> Then I'd like to propose that KDE signs it.

I propose that KDE does not sign it. KDE can make its own statement.

It's easy to press 'like' or 'i agree' without carefully reading what you are 
agreeing to. And consider that by agreeing to this letter you are creating 
ammunition by which FOSS can be attacked.

The statement that is currently proposed is an unproductive and divisive 
statement and has been engineered to be. Or it was written in a rage without 
much thought. At any rate, when you sign it, consider the full text.

If you intend to sign that letter, please read it carefully and consider the 
blanket statements against Free Software in it. The letter was initiated by a 
former President of OSI [1].

The GitHub organization that initiated the letter is anonymous:
   https://github.com/rms-open-letter
The texts "We, the undersigned, believe in the necessity of digital autonomy" 
and "We believe in a present and a future where all technology empowers – not 
oppresses – people." sound hollow if it is hosted on GitHub, an undemocratic 
website where only the owners have influence on how it is run.

Why is the letter hosted there? It it because no FOSS organization wanted to 
host a letter worded like that? I think so. Instead of getting a nuanced 
opinion this letter cherry-picks signatures from across communities.

The letter says:

"It is time for RMS to step back from the free software, tech ethics, digital 
rights, and tech communities"

So sign this letter, you agree that he's an outcast.

"We ask for contributors to free software projects to take a stand against 
bigotry and hate within their projects."

So everyone that signs this bigoted and hateful letter should step away?

In the coming days, there'll be statements by FOSS organizations, public, or 
directly to the board of the FSF about this surprising board addition. But 
let's make them better than the letter that is proposed here.

⤳Jos

[1] https://opensource.org/node/1028


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

Re: RMS and open letter

[Halla Rempt]

On Tuesday, 23 March 2021 20:49:36 CET Carl Schwan wrote:
> Hello all,
> like you probably heard already RMS was reinstatement to the
> Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
> always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
> to his toxic behavior. There is an open letter asking for his
> and the current board FSF resignation available at
> https://rms-open-letter.github.io/.
> 
> It was already signed by many other Free Software contributors
> from many organizations (GNOME, OSI, Apache, ...) and it would be
> a good idea for some us to sign it too.
> 
> This can be done by either sending a email digitalautonomy at riseup.net
> or by submitting a pull request at 
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/pulls.

I signed -- by email, since I didn't want to use github's infrastructure -- 
because I felt that everyone who worked on LibrePlanet, including David Revoy, 
has been betrayed by the FSF board.

-- 
https://www.krita.org

Re: RMS and open letter

[Sune Vuorela]

On 2021-03-24, Valorie Zimmerman  wrote:
> Thanks, Carl. I would like to point out that Carl posted his suggestion to
> the individual people on this list. He did not propose that the KDE e.V.
> officially take a stand.

Then I'd like to propose that KDE signs it.

/Sune

Re: RMS and open letter

[Valorie Zimmerman]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:50 PM Carl Schwan  wrote:

> Hello all,
> like you probably heard already RMS was reinstatement to the
> Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
> always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
> to his toxic behavior. There is an open letter asking for his
> and the current board FSF resignation available at
> https://rms-open-letter.github.io/.
>
> It was already signed by many other Free Software contributors
> from many organizations (GNOME, OSI, Apache, ...) and it would be
> a good idea for some us to sign it too.
>
> This can be done by either sending a email digitalautonomy at riseup.net
> or by submitting a pull request at
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/pulls.
>
> Regards,
> Carl Schwan
> https://carlschwan.eu


Thanks, Carl. I would like to point out that Carl posted his suggestion to
the individual people on this list. He did not propose that the KDE e.V.
officially take a stand.

If you agree with Carl that RMS should not be able to slink back onto the
Board of the FSF and that action by the FSF is bad for Free Software, then
his email tells you how to register your concern.

If you disagree, you need take no action. RMS is now back on the FSF Board,
and none of us know how or why that happened.

I'm unsure why there is outrage in offering people a choice?

Valorie < pro-Free Software; against supporting pedophilia and pedophiles

-- 
http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her

Re: RMS and open letter

[Patrick Spendrin]

Hi everybody,

I haven't spoken up in a while, but this actually triggers me in a
special way. I haven't been a friend of the person Stallman, but that is
shared with a lot of other people, even some here within KDE.
Nevertheless this didn't stop me from contributing side by side with them.

>> Carl Schwan  wrote:
...
>>> Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
>>> always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
>>> to his toxic behavior. There is an open letter asking for his
...

This is harshly worded to say the least, if not insulting and plain
wrong. One can easily claim that without Stallmans work, we wouldn't be
where we are now.

> Hyperbole incoming: If someone invented the cure for all cancers and then 
> went and killed 1 million people with his bare hands, he would still be a 
> monster.

There exist such cases. Think of reiserfs. Does the background of the
author make this bad software? Nope. Is he in jail for the right reasons
and not able to contribute further? Afaik yes.

> Having started Free Software doesn't give you carte blanche to in general 
> being a toxic person.

No, but the toxic behaviour of Stallman doesn't give anybody the carte
blanche to at least downplay completely Stallman's achievements for Free
Software (which is btw. not identical to an ideal society).

The question why Stallman can easily be readded to the board is a far
bigger issue here; We should address this foremost and ignore the person
Stallman.

regards,
Patrick

-- 
Diese Email ist von mir digital signiert.
Falls du ebenfalls deine Emails signieren oder verschlüsseln willst,
frage mich einfach oder schaue dir diese Seite an:

https://netzpolitik.org/2013/anleitung-so-verschlusselt-ihr-eure-e-mails-mit-pgp/



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: 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


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

Re: RMS and open letter

[Carl Schwan]

Le mardi, mars 23, 2021 11:11 PM, Luis Falcon  a écrit :

> On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:49:36 +
> Carl Schwan c...@carlschwan.eu wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> > like you probably heard already RMS was reinstatement to the
> > Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
> > always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
> > to his toxic behavior. There is an open letter asking for his
> > and the current board FSF resignation available at
> > https://rms-open-letter.github.io/.
>
> This attack against Richard is appalling, and, in my opinion, the
> reflection of the sick society we live in.
>
> I find disgusting the amount of public mobbing and battering that
> Richard has suffered this past year and a half. Many of the
> brown-nosers who proudly showed pictures with him, now are part of this
> evil campaign.
>
> You don't have an idea of how much pain these people has inflicted upon
> him. Zero empathy. Not a single case has been filed against him, just
> coward bullying and mobbing. You believe he is guilty, then go to court.

Doing something morally wrong is not always illegal according to the laws.

> Richard has been a victim of those who could not accept a pure movement
> and philosophy like the Free/Libre Software movement.

If you look at the people who signed the letter, you will see a lot of
names of people who also dedicated their lives to Free Software. I don't
think they want to destroy the movement but are getting tired of having
RMS, as a public figure, representing them.

> While some of his same-age are now filthy rich by writing proprietary
> code, RMS lives humbly, putting all his time and talent to the benefit
> of the community.

He hurts many in the community, driving away contributors from
underexpressed minorities. A good summary can be found here:
https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix

> We can not conceive the Free/Libre Software - and all the benefits that
> brought to society- without Richard. Our projects would not exist today
> without RMS, Founder of the FSF and the GNU project. That is just being
> grateful.

RMS created the free software movement but this shouldn't be an excuse
for irresponsible behavior. People at the top of an organization and
serving as a public figure for a movement should have an irreproachable
behavior. With great power comes great responsibilities.

> Finally, I find ironic that the "open letter" to debunk RMS is placed
> on Github, a Microsoft owned company.

Yeah not a fan of that personally but the option to sign by mail was also
available for those who wished to only use free software to sign the letter.

> This puts an end to my discussion on this matter, at least on this
> channel.
>
> -
>
> Dr. Luis Falcon, MD, MSc
> President, GNU Solidario
> Advancing Social Medicine
> www.gnuhealth.org

Re: RMS and open letter

[Albert Astals Cid]

El dimarts, 23 de març de 2021, a les 23:11:52 CET, Luis Falcon va escriure:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:49:36 +
> Carl Schwan  wrote:
> 
> > Hello all,
> > like you probably heard already RMS was reinstatement to the
> > Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
> > always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
> > to his toxic behavior. There is an open letter asking for his
> > and the current board FSF resignation available at
> > https://rms-open-letter.github.io/.
> > 
> 
> This attack against Richard is appalling, and, in my opinion, the
> reflection of the sick society we live in.
> 
> I find disgusting the amount of public mobbing and battering that
> Richard has suffered this past year and a half. Many of the
> brown-nosers who proudly showed pictures with him, now are part of this
> evil campaign.
> 
> You don't have an idea of how much pain these people has inflicted upon
> him. Zero empathy. Not a single case has been filed against him, just
> coward bullying and mobbing. 

Poor guy, he bullied and mobbed and now he is sad because people are fed up of 
his behaviour and rightfully complaining.

> You believe he is guilty, then go to court.

In court? You don't need to do something *criminal* to be considered unfit for 
leading.

> Richard has been a victim of those who could not accept a pure movement
> and philosophy like the Free/Libre Software movement. 

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. This is nothing to do about the 
"pureness" of the Free Software movement, this is about him being of 
questionable character.

> While some of his same-age are now filthy rich by writing proprietary
> code, RMS lives humbly, putting all his time and talent to the benefit
> of the community.

Unless you're women, or trans, or he doesn't like you.

> We can not conceive the Free/Libre Software - and all the benefits that
> brought to society- without Richard. Our projects would not exist today
> without RMS, Founder of the FSF and the GNU project. That is just being
> grateful. 

Hyperbole incoming: If someone invented the cure for all cancers and then went 
and killed 1 million people with his bare hands, he would still be a monster.

Having started Free Software doesn't give you carte blanche to in general being 
a toxic person.

> Finally, I find ironic that the "open letter" to debunk RMS is placed
> on Github, a Microsoft owned company. 
> 
> This puts an end to my discussion on this matter, at least on this
> channel.

Saying "you're wrong, I'm right and i will not discuss this further" has to be 
one of the worst ways ever to try to convince people 

Albert

> 
> 

Re: RMS and open letter

[Jacky Alcine]

Well, now I have a list of platforms and people to avoid who have no problems 
supporting self-proclaimed pedophiles.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021, at 15:11, Luis Falcon wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:49:36 +
> Carl Schwan  wrote:
> 
> > Hello all,
> > like you probably heard already RMS was reinstatement to the
> > Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
> > always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
> > to his toxic behavior. There is an open letter asking for his
> > and the current board FSF resignation available at
> > https://rms-open-letter.github.io/.
> > 
> 
> This attack against Richard is appalling, and, in my opinion, the
> reflection of the sick society we live in.
> 
> I find disgusting the amount of public mobbing and battering that
> Richard has suffered this past year and a half. Many of the
> brown-nosers who proudly showed pictures with him, now are part of this
> evil campaign.
> 
> You don't have an idea of how much pain these people has inflicted upon
> him. Zero empathy. Not a single case has been filed against him, just
> coward bullying and mobbing. You believe he is guilty, then go to court.
> 
> Richard has been a victim of those who could not accept a pure movement
> and philosophy like the Free/Libre Software movement. 
> 
> While some of his same-age are now filthy rich by writing proprietary
> code, RMS lives humbly, putting all his time and talent to the benefit
> of the community.
> 
> We can not conceive the Free/Libre Software - and all the benefits that
> brought to society- without Richard. Our projects would not exist today
> without RMS, Founder of the FSF and the GNU project. That is just being
> grateful. 
> 
> Finally, I find ironic that the "open letter" to debunk RMS is placed
> on Github, a Microsoft owned company. 
> 
> This puts an end to my discussion on this matter, at least on this
> channel.
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Luis Falcon, MD, MSc
> President, GNU Solidario
> Advancing Social Medicine
> www.gnuhealth.org
>

Re: RMS and open letter

[Luis Falcon]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:49:36 +
Carl Schwan  wrote:

> Hello all,
> like you probably heard already RMS was reinstatement to the
> Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
> always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
> to his toxic behavior. There is an open letter asking for his
> and the current board FSF resignation available at
> https://rms-open-letter.github.io/.
> 

This attack against Richard is appalling, and, in my opinion, the
reflection of the sick society we live in.

I find disgusting the amount of public mobbing and battering that
Richard has suffered this past year and a half. Many of the
brown-nosers who proudly showed pictures with him, now are part of this
evil campaign.

You don't have an idea of how much pain these people has inflicted upon
him. Zero empathy. Not a single case has been filed against him, just
coward bullying and mobbing. You believe he is guilty, then go to court.

Richard has been a victim of those who could not accept a pure movement
and philosophy like the Free/Libre Software movement. 

While some of his same-age are now filthy rich by writing proprietary
code, RMS lives humbly, putting all his time and talent to the benefit
of the community.

We can not conceive the Free/Libre Software - and all the benefits that
brought to society- without Richard. Our projects would not exist today
without RMS, Founder of the FSF and the GNU project. That is just being
grateful. 

Finally, I find ironic that the "open letter" to debunk RMS is placed
on Github, a Microsoft owned company. 

This puts an end to my discussion on this matter, at least on this
channel.

-- 
Dr. Luis Falcon, MD, MSc
President, GNU Solidario
Advancing Social Medicine
www.gnuhealth.org

Re: RMS and open letter

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Dienstag, 23. März 2021 20:49:36 CET Carl Schwan wrote:
> Hello all,
> like you probably heard already RMS was reinstatement to the
> Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
> always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
> to his toxic behavior. 

IMO, calling RMS' as "always been a negative force  toxic behaviour" is 
far beyond appropriate.
He has been pushing for Free Software for many years (not just for Open 
Source). I am very very thankful for that. We all should be IMO.
He behaved inappropriately, so he stepped back.
But now stating "he has always been negative" is just absurdly wrong.

 I object to signing this.

Alex

Re: RMS and open letter

[Uli Klinkhammer]

Hey Carl,

I am relatively new to the KDE community and to the Free Software Movement.

So I really dont understand in detail what you are talking about.

If you are talking about this:

https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix

.. I just can say, that we should have a closer look at Richards philosophy.

At first place: I am NOT a friend of child pornography.

But if some person, who is already able to make its own decisions (I
think this starts at the age of 13 or 14) comes to the conclusion to "do
this or to do that" (that could be drug taking at the same time as
having sex or any other thing), this in my eyes is totally natural and
normal.

I for myself started to have sex at the age of 13, started to drive my
own car at 14 and I started smoking hash at the age of 15.

Our old-fashioned societies are full of rules, created by those "ruling
aristocrats". They want shift us, to adapt us and to rule us.

I think the Open Software movement is precisely acting against those.

So, should we have a second look of what Richard Stallman was saying?

In this world, in this nature, everything is relative. And so every
relationship, whatever it is, should be judged just by the persons who
are involved in this relationship, and not by people outside.

So EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE HIMSELF, OF WHAT HE WANTS OR NOT.

I think this is the real policy of the free software movement.

greets,

Uli

KDE supporting member


On 23/03/2021 20:49, Carl Schwan wrote:
> Hello all,
> like you probably heard already RMS was reinstatement to the
> Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
> always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
> to his toxic behavior. There is an open letter asking for his
> and the current board FSF resignation available at
> https://rms-open-letter.github.io/.
>
> It was already signed by many other Free Software contributors
> from many organizations (GNOME, OSI, Apache, ...) and it would be
> a good idea for some us to sign it too.
>
> This can be done by either sending a email digitalautonomy at riseup.net
> or by submitting a pull request at 
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/pulls.
>
> Regards,
> Carl Schwan
> https://carlschwan.eu
>
>

Re: RMS and open letter

[Carl Schwan]

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
Le mardi, mars 23, 2021 9:24 PM, keziolio...@gmail.com  
a écrit :

> I'd like to see the free software community pick more useful battles...

Considering that he considers himself as a leader of the Free Software
movement, I think it's something important for the Free Software
contributors. Also like Eike said in his email, it's a bit concerning
that this the decision from the fsf board was not transparent and that
not even the staffer of the LibrePlanet event knew about this decision.

https://twitter.com/fsf/status/1374399897558917128

>
> Il giorno mar 23 mar 2021 alle ore 20:50 Carl Schwan
> c...@carlschwan.eu ha scritto:
>
> > Hello all,
> > like you probably heard already RMS was reinstatement to the
> > Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
> > always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
> > to his toxic behavior. There is an open letter asking for his
> > and the current board FSF resignation available at
> > https://rms-open-letter.github.io/.
> > It was already signed by many other Free Software contributors
> > from many organizations (GNOME, OSI, Apache, ...) and it would be
> > a good idea for some us to sign it too.
> > This can be done by either sending a email digitalautonomy at riseup.net
> > or by submitting a pull request at 
> > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/pulls.
> > Regards,
> > Carl Schwan
> > https://carlschwan.eu

Re: RMS and open letter

[Nicolás Alvarez]

El mar, 23 de mar. de 2021 a la(s) 17:27, Jos van den Oever
(j...@vandenoever.info) escribió:
> "I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been
> advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept
> that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the
> same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming
> from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the
> mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally offensive."
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535390

Stallman himself has denied having autism.

-- 
Nicolás

Re: RMS and open letter

[Eike Hein]

With the dot-org hat on, I wish the Open Letter had a little bit more of a 
dot-org focus instead of focusing on the individual.

What the current controversy highlights is that FSF board changes occur without 
an election and without significant transparency.[1]

This is not KDE e.V.'s organizational setup, and it's also not the setup we 
would like to see in an organization that aims to centrally represent Free 
Software. It's also likely that the current and other situations would have 
been prevented by a healthier, more participatory board setup.

I think the discussion of where to take the FSF (or representation for Free 
Software communities in general) next is what matters beyond the current moment 
in time. This is worth thinking about in the coming days, and also discussing 
with our partner dot-orgs.


1 = https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/fsf-amended-bylaws-current.pdf

Best regards,
Eike Hein
-
KDE e.V. vice president, treasurer

Re: RMS and open letter

[Nicolas Fella]

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.
This has nothing to do with free vs proprietary software.

In KDE, there is CWG of which we can be proud that deals with situations like
this with respect for the people on all sides of a situation.

Society is developing more awareness of differences between people and new
rules of engagements are coming and going. As humans we muddle on. A quote
from Hacker News is fitting:

"I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been
advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept
that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the
same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming
from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the
mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally offensive."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535390

Using the theory of autism to excuse his behavior has been debunked
multiple times by people describing the issue much better than I can,
but TL;DR: Using (alleged) neurodivergence as a justification for
repeated toxic behavior is wrong and harmful for people that are
actually neurodivergent. Also, not illegal does not imply ethical/not
harmful.

How can you write "RMS has always been a negative force to the Free Software
movement due to his toxic behavior." when he is the one that started Free
Software? We have Free Software because RMS thought hard about what digital
freedom means and how we can make it a reality.

Both "he helped starting something good" and "he had a severely bad
influence on it" can be true at the same time

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.

⤳Jos

On dinsdag 23 maart 2021 20:49:36 CET Carl Schwan wrote:


Cheers

Nico


Hello all,
like you probably heard already RMS was reinstatement to the
Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
to his toxic behavior. There is an open letter asking for his
and the current board FSF resignation available at
https://rms-open-letter.github.io/.

It was already signed by many other Free Software contributors
from many organizations (GNOME, OSI, Apache, ...) and it would be
a good idea for some us to sign it too.

This can be done by either sending a email digitalautonomy at riseup.net
or by submitting a pull request at
https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/pulls.

Regards,
Carl Schwan
https://carlschwan.eu

Re: RMS and open letter

[Jos van den Oever]

Hi Carl,

Does a free internet mean that people should be mobbed for their past 
opinions? On proprietary Microsoft infrastructure no less.

In KDE, there is CWG of which we can be proud that deals with situations like 
this with respect for the people on all sides of a situation.

Society is developing more awareness of differences between people and new 
rules of engagements are coming and going. As humans we muddle on. A quote 
from Hacker News is fitting:

"I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been 
advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept 
that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the 
same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming 
from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the 
mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally offensive."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535390

How can you write "RMS has always been a negative force to the Free Software 
movement due to his toxic behavior." when he is the one that started Free 
Software? We have Free Software because RMS thought hard about what digital 
freedom means and how we can make it a reality.

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.

⤳Jos

On dinsdag 23 maart 2021 20:49:36 CET Carl Schwan wrote:
> Hello all,
> like you probably heard already RMS was reinstatement to the
> Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
> always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
> to his toxic behavior. There is an open letter asking for his
> and the current board FSF resignation available at
> https://rms-open-letter.github.io/.
> 
> It was already signed by many other Free Software contributors
> from many organizations (GNOME, OSI, Apache, ...) and it would be
> a good idea for some us to sign it too.
> 
> This can be done by either sending a email digitalautonomy at riseup.net
> or by submitting a pull request at
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/pulls.
> 
> Regards,
> Carl Schwan
> https://carlschwan.eu



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

Re: RMS and open letter

[keziolio...@gmail.com]

I'd like to see the free software community pick more useful battles...



Il giorno mar 23 mar 2021 alle ore 20:50 Carl Schwan
 ha scritto:
>
> Hello all,
> like you probably heard already RMS was reinstatement to the
> Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
> always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
> to his toxic behavior. There is an open letter asking for his
> and the current board FSF resignation available at
> https://rms-open-letter.github.io/.
>
> It was already signed by many other Free Software contributors
> from many organizations (GNOME, OSI, Apache, ...) and it would be
> a good idea for some us to sign it too.
>
> This can be done by either sending a email digitalautonomy at riseup.net
> or by submitting a pull request at 
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/pulls.
>
> Regards,
> Carl Schwan
> https://carlschwan.eu
>
>