Sometimes I wonder what the Free Software movement would have been like if the spearhead was not a weirdo.
I know a lot of free software people and they are fascist, NED regime change type libs who think they are smarter and better than everyone else. Many of them have backgrounds working for the government in some degree or another, and then they move on to NGOs and the like.
For some reason libertarians also love free software which makes no sense. You would need a powerful state to enforce free software licenses.
yeah they have totally incoherent ideologies which are all centered around selfishness, and again, thinking they are smarter and better than people who don't know whatever they know. They reinvent eugenics every time.
You would need a powerful state to enforce free software licenses.
How? Why?
How would you enforce any license without a state? The point of a license is that when someone violates it you can take them to court. The judicial system is a part of the state.
Free software is defined as software that allows the end-user to use, distribute, and edit it in any way they choose.
Can you give an example of a scenario when police would enforce a violation of that?
That's not the extent of software freedom. You can personally modify someone else's free software if you want. But if you are providing the modified software to others, either as a free or a paid product, then you have to provide the users with a copy of the modified source code. Modifying GPL licensed code and using it commercially without supplying the modified source code is the primary source of free software license violations.
Yeah lots of horrible shits, but from what I've seen most of them prefer to label themselves under the „Open Source” umbrella.
It wouldn't have gotten off the ground. Often it is the "weirdos" (eccentrics, passionate people) who move things along.
A very controversial, excentric, for many downright weird person who was the starter of a great great movement. Too bad he's such an idealist, but I guess that is for us to pick up the slack and promote free software within socialist circles. His ideas, and he himself (for better or for worse) were what lit my spark and what truly began my radicalization. Back when I was just thirteen. Libertarians swayed me for a short period, but here I am.
spoiler
ignore my pfp lol
Free and open source software is essential to a healthy tech space. It decommodifies technology and creates an alternate digital space outside of the big-tech capitalist's hands. Stallman's contributions toward this space cannot be denied and I appreciate those efforts. He is a bit dogmatic about how he approaches free software though and that doesn't help the space. However the man himself is a piece of shit outside of tech, through and through. He has defended all manner of sexism, harassment, SA, racism, etc. Just seems like some bigoted libertarian creep to me and he should not be revered even if his work in free software has materially benefited the world.
I like his views on sharing source code, not really fond of most of the rest of his opinions and I feel like the movement, as a whole, should move on from him as a figurehead.
The slogan "Stallman was right" is a good slogan because his only redeeming feature is that he's right.
He has one core message. He's right about that. He has no other redeeming features.
If we are to get pedantic he was mostly speaking out for Minsky in a very inappropriate and insensitive way, by discussing over the definition of rape. But he did have shitty views on pedophilia before recounting them and thanking the community for educating him and changing his views. But still... Yeah.
Also it seems that some people had experiences with him they felt were at best inappropriate and at worst reprehensible. But of course, in contrast there are others that genuinely see him as a fine person and wish to defend him. But to be fair it was 5 years since I engaged in the drama and I see that stallmansupport.org have themselves undergone a few updates.
But to say he outright defended Epstein? Nah fam
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Statements_about_Epstein)
I want to respond to the misleading media coverage of messages I posted about Marvin Minsky's association with Jeffrey Epstein. The coverage totally mischaracterised my statements.
Headlines say that I defended Epstein. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a "serial rapist", and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him — and other inaccurate claims — and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said.
I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding.
As I've said, he is a very controversial, eccentric and to some downright weird person. But I don't believe he is a bad person.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170612074722/http://stallman.org/archives/2017-mar-jun.html#26_May_2017_(Prudish_ignorantism)
None of these acts would be wrong in any sense, provided they took precautions against spreading infections.
I'm recanting my statement for believing he changed on the case of pedophilia. What the fuck Richard. This isn't even his pedantic way of word usage, and can't be fucking defended by talking about the way he uses langauge. Why the fuck does he have to be like this :kind-vladimir-ilyich:
Better late than never, I guess. But hey, he hasn't defended epstein. I guess :sadness:
Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing
Yeah nah, there's only so much libertarian rhetoric I can take as a good faith arguments
I'm sorry but Vice is doing some heavy editorialising here, and in my view outright lying. I'm just going to link the E-mail chain as compiled by stallmansupport.org and quote them here. Emphasis mine.
https://stallmansupport.org/docs/csail-emails-reordered.pdf
From: Richard Stallman To: [A] Cc: csail-related@mit.edu Date: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:03 AM Subject: Re: [csail-related] Protest against MIT involvement with Epstein
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:
deceased AI “pioneer” Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])
The injustice is in the word "assaulting". The term "sexual assault" is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X.
The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein's harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-traffickingisland-court-records-unsealed.)
Let's presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). The word "assaulting" presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.
We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
I've concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term "sexual assault" in an accusation. Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.
--
Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
As we can see, Stallman never said the victims „were entirely willing” but that they were coerced into presenting themselves as such to Minksy. Nonetheless, Stallman was insensitive about this whole issue (being typically pedantic about specific word usage, as he tends to be) and shouldn't have tried defending Minsky in this E-mail at all. But we shouldn't be using fucking VICE of all things instead of the direct source.
If you want to sling shit at Stallman, you should direct your eyes to other matters (like his insensitivity), but he never defended Epstein.
In addition I'll link to E-mails as they were compiled by VICE, as those have also been presented by the article: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001
It seems to me that he is far too bothered by the terminology. "Sexual abuse" also works without an "assault" and it makes sense for a court to differentiate between the two. But I would expect a lawyer to get lost in the terminology, but I don't know why Stallmann is so interested in it.
I also don't know why he is like that around words, but I know of people who say it is extremely difficult to converse with him on any topic because he tends to devolve the conversation to this exact thing. Shit happened in one email chain I had with him.
If Stallman wants me to believe that he's naive enough to believe that victims of sex trafficking feigning consent is the same as consensual sex, I have to question all of his claims
That's a completely fine and valid point. By the way, I've read something more recent that's made Stallman undefendable now. It no longer matters to me that he didn't defend Epstein. Fuck me :sadness:
https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/4336825
