Hi Nichol, Thank you very much for writing and sharing the information with us.
I really appreciate it. -- Best regards, Tadeus > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2021 at 5:12 AM > From: "J.B. Nicholson" <j...@forestfield.org> > To: discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu > Subject: Process improvements are needed > > Daniel Pocock wrote: > > Organizations need a process for evaluating incidents like this fairly and > > objectively. > > I think that that process should include listing one's rights and evidence > which > we're all allowed to see. It also would be good to have more clearly > established > reasoning such as what Nadine Strossen is reported to have said on the issue > of RMS' > re-admittance to the FSF Board of Directors (see > https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web-rms -- Strossen's arguments > put the > lie to those who claim that freedom of speech has nothing to do with RMS' > readmittance[1]). There Strossen makes reference to actual court decisions > where > evidence is brought up for review, argued over, and all done under a system > we can > learn and understand. And laws generally have periods where punishment is > valid and > punishments last for known periods of time. We also have a means of changing > laws and > punishments. I don't see anything like that going on in this issue concerning > RMS' > readmittance to the FSF Board. What I've seen in this debate is > indistinguishable > from reacting to RMS' ideas others don't like or agree with. No matter how > much one > disagrees with those ideas, that's still speech. > > [1] http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html and > https://current.workingdirectory.net/posts/2021/stallman/ have both made this > point. > > > For example, when Linus made some comments at DebConf there was a big fuss. > > Many > > people complained that nobody was willing to interrupt Linus. People want > > to have > > their cake and eat it too. > > When I think about Linus Torvalds in the context of RMS returning to the FSF > Board, I > recall that Torvalds has a well-known and public record of swearing at > programmers > whose code he didn't like. This apparently included giving people the middle > finger > and Sarah Sharp pointing out "Linus Torvalds is advocating for physical > intimidation > and violence. Ingo Molnar and Linus are advocating for verbal abuse." in > order to get > Linux kernel hackers to improve the quality of their patches (see > https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus-torvalds-defends-his-right-to-shame-linux-kernel-developers/ > for more on this). Torvalds was allowed to choose to temporarily retire from > his > work, reconsider his previous statements, and (at least insofar as > establishment > media reports it) uncontroversially return to his work. There was a time when > Torvalds' speech was a subject of some debate on mailing lists and that time > appears > to be over. Not so for RMS. > > At no point do I recall anyone heading up or joining an effort asking people > to: stop > supporting the Linux kernel, refuse to contribute to projects related to Linus > Torvalds, and not speak at or attend Linux kernel events or "events that > welcome" > Torvalds "and his brand of intolerance" all "while doing these things, > tell[ing] > these communities and the" Linux-related group/project why. All of these > things are > listed in the demands of the github.io anti-RMS letter. This strikes me as a > remarkably inconsistent take which (when considered from a cui bono -- who > benefits? > -- perspective) ultimately favors proprietors. After all, Torvalds' Linux fork > contains proprietary software (which GNU Linux-libre removes in its fork of > the Linux > kernel; perhaps this is a project we're supposed to shun because GNU > Linux-libre is > part of the GNU Project and the GNU Project is headed up by RMS). > > It wouldn't surprise me if the open source mindset (which was always amenable > to > non-free software and actively discourages freedom talk -- the OSI for years > referred > to freedom talk as "ideological tub-thumping" on its website) was behind some > of the > corporate backers opposing RMS' readmittance. One noteworthy contributor > opposing > RMS' return is IBM (which owns Red Hat). This is particularly ironic on > ethical > grounds given that IBM did business with the 3rd Reich in Germany and (in > more modern > times) tries to downplay or distract attention away from the legitimacy of > that ugly > history (see "The Corporation" segment with Edwin Black and an IBM > representative > responding to Black's research for this or watch > https://files.digitalcitizen.info/corporations-prop-up-fascists/the-corporation-nazi-germany.webm > to see that segment). > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu > https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion > _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
