I’ve been thinking about this for a while now.
Richard Stallman has been practically synonymous with Free Software since its inception. And there are good reasons why. It was his idea, and it was his passion that made the movement what it is today.
I deeply believe in the mission of the Free Software movement. But more and more, it seems that in order to survive, the Free Software movement may need to distance itself from him.
Richard Stallman has said some really disturbingly reprehensible things on multiple occasions (one and two). (He has said he’s changed these opinions, but it seems to me the damage is done.)
He’s asked that people blame him and not the FSF for these statements, but it seems naive to me to expect that to be enough not to tarnish the FSF’s reputation in the eyes of most people.
And Richard Stallman isn’t the only problematic figure associated with the Free Software movement… Eben Moglen (founder, Direct-Council, and Chairman of Software Freedom Law Center which is closely associated with the FSF) has been accused of much abusive and anti-LGBTQIA+ behavior over which the Free Software Foundation Europe and Software Freedom Concervancy have cut ties with the SFLC and Moglen (one and two).
Even aside from the public image problems, it seems like the FSF and SFLC have been holding back the Free Software movement strategically. Eben Moglan has long been adamant that the GPL shouldn’t be interpreted as a contract – only as a copyright license. What the SFC is doing now with the Visio lawsuit is only possible because the SFC had the courage to abandon that theory.
I sense there’s a rift in the Free Software movement. Especially given that the SFC and FSF Europe explicitly cutting ties with the SFLC and Moglen. And individual supporters of Free Software are going to have to decide which parties in this split are going to speak for and champion the cause of the community as a whole.
I imagine it’s pretty clear by this point that I favor the SFC in this split. I like what I’ve seen from the SFC in general. Not just the Visio lawsuit. But also the things I’ve heard said by SFC folks.
If the Free Software movement needs a single personality to be its face moving forward, I’d love for that face to be Bradley M. Kuhn, executive director of the SFC. He seems to have all of Stallman’s and Moglen’s assets (passion, dedication, an unwillingness to bend, and experience and knowledge of the legal aspects of Free Software enforcement) perhaps even more so than Stallman and Moglen do. And Kuhn excels in all the areas where Stallman and Moglen perhaps don’t so much (social consciousness, likeability, strategy.) I can’t say enough good things about Kuhn, really. (And his Wikipedia page doesn’t even have a “controversies” section.) (Also, please tell me there aren’t any skeletons in his closet.)
Even if the community does come to a consensus that the movement should distance itself from Stallman and Moglen, it’ll be difficult to achieve such a change in public perception and if it’s achieved, it may come at a cost. After all, Stallman is the first person everybody pictures when the FSF is mentioned. And acknowledging the problems with the Free Software movement’s “old brass” may damage the reputation of Free Software as a whole among those who might not differentiate between the parties in this split. But I feel it may be necessary for the future of the Free Software movement.
That’s my take, anyway. I’ll hop down off of my soap box, now. But I wanted to bring this up, hopefully let some folks whose ideals align with those of the Free Software movement about all this if they weren’t already aware, and maybe see what folks in general think about the future of the Free Software movement.
He’s on the board, though.
I don’t even really believe in “bad people.” But the optics…
Yeah, maybe I’m being too hasty to lump the FSF and SFLC in together. I guess the basis on which I was making that assumption was:
I’ll have to do some more research and see if the FSF has made any official statements about Moglen. If not, the silence alone is a little concerning. But yeah.
Edit: Ok, well I found this sentence on Stallman’s Wikipedia page referring to when Stallman returned to the FSF as a board member in 2021:
So even if the SFC and FSF Europe haven’t cut ties with the FSF specifically over Moglen, they have cut ties over Stallman’s return to the FSF. Here’s the FSFE’s statement about it and the SFC’s.
He’s on the board, and can be removed from the board. He also doesn’t have ultimate power, just a voice.
I wouldn’t jump to say the FSF condones the sentiments or actions of the SFLC, considering that the FSF was the organisation run by a vocal pro-LGBT man who also has a strong distaste for any sort of mistreatment, until a few years ago, and none of the FSF board or voting members have expressed such sentiments or supported the SFLC for these actions.
I agree that they should say something, but I don’t take the lack of a statement as condoning it or agreeing, based on what I’ve said above.
EDIT: I see your edit. I think it’d be worth it to point out that the whole reason this controversy started, if you read the whole email chain and not badly paraphrased news articles, is that on the MIT CSAIL mailing list, people were discussing the possible actions of Marvin Minsky, one of Stallman’s former professors.
Stallman comes along and sees a word he thinks has been used incorrectly and points it out, he also states that we must use words correctly so as to not dilute their meaning, arguing in the same vein as when he said “we should be calling Epstein a Serial Rapist, Sex Offender isn’t harsh enough and minimises his actions” (paraphrased). Of course in an emotionally charged discussion like this where everyone is angry this is not a smart decision. He failed to read the room, someone threatened to leak the email chain, and they did.
From there many news articles pop up, many completely flipping what he said on it’s head (again, by badly paraphrasing and removing important words), and that’s where the controversy comes from. Many say he was condoning the actions of Epstein’s associates, rather than just stupid semantics, which if you read the email chain is evident. And again, I raise the example where he says Epstein isn’t described harshly enough.
As you can see, there was no malign intent on Stallman’s part, only a grave failure to read the room.
Can I ask to whom you’re referring?
That would be Stallman. Who is no longer in charge but when he was, that holds true.
I can’t make specific statements about the current leadership because as far as I’m aware they haven’t become vocal about this.