Site Map - skip to main content

Hacker Public Radio

Your ideas, projects, opinions - podcasted.

New episodes Monday through Friday.

hpr3311 :: Bradley M. Kuhn's article from 2019 on Richard M. Stallman

This text to speech article requires listener discretion.

<< First, < Previous, , Latest >>

Hosted by Anonymous Host on 2021-04-12 is flagged as Explicit and is released under a CC-BY-SA license.
Bradley M. Kuhn, Richard M. Stallman, RMS, FSF, Free Software Foundation. 8.

Listen in ogg, spx, or mp3 format. Play now:

Duration: 00:26:24


Counter Point

This show has a counter point: hpr3316 :: FSF and RMS on election of Richard Stallman

Warning This show contains information that may not be suitable for all. Listener discretion is advised.

Recently Richard M. Stallman, announced that he has rejoined the Free Software Foundation’s board of directors. An open letter on github called for him to be removed again, and for the FSF’s entire board to resign.

When he resigned in 2019, Bradley M. Kuhn (from the Free as in Freedom podcast) wrote an article titled "On Recent Controversial Events" about the issue. I am submitting that article here under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. The post contains many links and is available in the shownotes for this show. Some examples are included at the end of the blog post, and listener discretion is advised.

On Recent Controversial Events

Tuesday 15 October 2019 by Bradley M. Kuhn

The last 33 days have been unprecedentedly difficult for the software freedom community and for me personally. Folks have been emailing, phoning, texting, tagging me on social media (— the last of which has been funny, because all my social media accounts are placeholder accounts). But, just about everyone has urged me to comment on the serious issues that the software freedom community now faces. Until now, I have stayed silent regarding all these current topics: from Richard M. Stallman (RMS)’s public statements, to his resignation from the Free Software Foundation (FSF), to the Epstein scandal and its connection to MIT. I’ve also avoided generally commenting on software freedom organizational governance during this period. I did this for good reason, which is explained below. However, in this blog post, I now share my primary comments on the matters that seem to currently be of the utmost attention of the Open Source and Free Software communities.

I have been silent the last month because, until two days ago, I was an at-large member of FSF’s Board of Directors, and a Voting Member of the FSF. As a member of FSF’s two leadership bodies, I was abiding by a reasonable request from the FSF management and my duty to the organization. Specifically, the FSF asked that all communication during the crisis come directly from FSF officers and not from at-large directors and/or Voting Members. Furthermore, the FSF management asked all Directors and Voting Members to remain silent on this entire matter — even on issues only tangentially related to the current situation, and even when speaking in our own capacity (e.g., on our own blogs like this one). The FSF is an important organization, and I take any request from the FSF seriously — so I abided fully with their request.

The situation was further complicated because folks at my employer, Software Freedom Conservancy (where I also serve on the Board of Directors) had strong opinions about this matter as well. Fortunately, the FSF and Conservancy both had already created clear protocols for what I should do if ever there was a disagreement or divergence of views between Conservancy and FSF. I therefore was recused fully from the planning, drafting, and timing of Conservancy’s statement on this matter. I thank my colleagues at the Conservancy for working so carefully to keep me entirely outside the loop on their statement and to diligently assure that it was straight-forward for me to manage any potential organizational disagreements. I also thank those at the FSF who outlined clear protocols (ahead of time, back in March 2019) in case a situation like this ever came up. I also know my colleagues at Conservancy care deeply, as I do, about the health and welfare of the FSF and its mission of fighting for universal software freedom for all. None of us want, nor have, any substantive disagreement over software freedom issues.

I take very seriously my duty to the various organizations where I have (or have had) affiliations. More generally, I champion non-profit organizational transparency. Unfortunately, the current crisis left me in a quandary between the overarching goal of community transparency and abiding by FSF management’s directives. Now that I’ve left the FSF Board of Directors, FSF’s Voting Membership, and all my FSF volunteer roles (which ends my 22-year uninterrupted affiliation with the FSF), I can now comment on the substantive issues that face not just the FSF, but the Free Software community as a whole, while continuing to adhere to my past duty of acting in FSF’s best interest. In other words, my affiliation with the FSF has come to an end for many good and useful reasons. The end to this affiliation allows me to speak directly about the core issues at the heart of the community’s current crisis.

Firstly, all these events — from RMS’ public comments on the MIT mailing list, to RMS’ resignation from the FSF to RMS’ discussions about the next steps for the GNU project — seem to many to have happened ridiculously quickly. But it wasn’t actually fast at all. In fact, these events were culmination of issues that were slowly growing in concern to many people, including me.

For the last two years, I had been a loud internal voice in the FSF leadership regarding RMS’ Free-Software-unrelated public statements; I felt strongly that it was in the best interest of the FSF to actively seek to limit such statements, and that it was my duty to FSF to speak out about this within the organization. Those who only learned of this story in the last month (understandably) believed Selam G.’s Medium post raised an entirely new issue. In fact, RMS’ views and statements posted on about sexual morality escalated for the worse over the last few years. When the escalation started, I still considered RMS both a friend and colleague, and I attempted to argue with him at length to convince him that some of his positions were harmful to sexual assault survivors and those who are sex-trafficked, and to the people who devote their lives in service to such individuals. More importantly to the FSF, I attempted to persuade RMS that launching a controversial campaign on sexual behavior and morality was counter to his and FSF’s mission to advance software freedom, and told RMS that my duty as an FSF Director was to assure the best outcome for the FSF, which IMO didn’t include having a leader who made such statements. Not only is human sexual behavior not a topic on which RMS has adequate academic expertise, but also his positions appear to ignore significant research and widely available information on the subject. Many of his comments, while occasionally politically intriguing, lack empathy for people who experienced trauma.

IMO, this is not and has never been a Free Speech issue. I do believe freedom of speech links directly to software freedom: indeed, I see the freedom to publish software under Free licenses as almost a corollary to the freedom of speech. However, we do not need to follow leadership from those whose views we fundamentally disagree. Moreover, organizations need not and should not elevate spokespeople and leaders who speak regularly on unrelated issues that organizations find do not advance their mission, and/or that alienate important constituents. I, like many other software freedom leaders, curtail my public comments on issues not related to FOSS. (Indeed, I would not even be commenting on this issue if it had not become a central issue of concern to the software freedom community.) Leaders have power, and they must exercise the power of their words with restraint, not with impunity.

RMS has consistently argued that there was a campaign of "prudish intimidation" — seeking to keep him quiet about his views on sexuality. After years of conversing with RMS about how his non-software-freedom views were a distraction, an indulgence, and downright problematic, his general response was to make even more public comments of this nature. The issue is not about RMS’ right to say what he believes, nor is it even about whether or not you agree or disagree with RMS’ statements. The question is whether an organization should have a designated leader who is on a sustained, public campaign advocating about an unrelated issue that many consider controversial. It really doesn’t matter what your view about the controversial issue is; a leader who refuses to stop talking loudly about unrelated issues eventually creates an untenable distraction from the radical activism you’re actively trying to advance. The message of universal software freedom is a radical cause; it’s basically impossible for one individual to effectively push forward two unrelated controversial agendas at once. In short, the radical message of software freedom became overshadowed by RMS’ radical views about sexual morality.

And here is where I say the thing that may infuriate many but it’s what I believe: I think RMS took a useful step by resigning some of his leadership roles at the FSF. I thank RMS for taking that step, and I wish the FSF Directors well in their efforts to assure that the FSF becomes a welcoming organization to all who care about universal software freedom. The FSF’s mission is essential to our technological future, and we should all support that mission. I care deeply about that mission myself and have worked and will continue to work in our community in the best interest of the mission.

I’m admittedly struggling to find a way to work again with RMS, given his views on sexual morality and his behaviors stemming from those views. I explicitly do not agree with this "(re-)definition" of sexual assault. Furthermore, I believe uninformed statements about sexual assault are irresponsible and cause harm to victims. #MeToo is not a "frenzy"; it is a global movement by individuals who have been harmed seeking to hold both bad actors and society-at-large accountable for ignoring systemic wrongs. Nevertheless, I still am proud of the essay that I co-wrote with RMS and still find many of RMS’ other essays compelling, important, and relevant.

I want the FSF to succeed in its mission and enter a new era of accomplishments. I’ve spent the last 22 years, without a break, dedicating substantial time, effort, care and loyalty to the various FSF roles that I’ve had: including employee, volunteer, at-large Director, and Voting Member. Even though my duties to the FSF are done, and my relationship with the FSF is no longer formal, I still think the FSF is a valuable institution worth helping and saving, specifically because the FSF was founded for a mission that I deeply support. And we should also realize that RMS — a human being (who is flawed like the rest of us) — invented that mission.

As culture change becomes more rapid, I hope we can find reasonable nuance and moderation on our complex analysis about people and their disparate views, while we also hold individuals fully accountable for their actions. That’s the difficulty we face in the post-post-modern culture of the early twenty-first century. Most importantly, I believe we must find a way to stand firm for software freedom while also making a safe environment for victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, gaslighting, and other deplorable actions.

Posted on Tuesday 15 October 2019 at 09:11 by Bradley M. Kuhn.

Submit comments on this post to <>.

The following posts are authored by Richard M. Stallman and are taken from his personal site They were linked to in the piece you have just heard. 31 October 2016 (Down’s syndrome) A new noninvasive test for Down’s syndrome will eliminate the small risk of the current test. This might lead more women to get tested, and abort fetuses that have Down’s syndrome. Let’s hope so! If you’d like to love and care for a pet that doesn’t have normal human mental capacity, don’t create a handicapped human being to be your pet. Get a dog or a parrot. It will appreciate your love, and it will never feel bad for being less capable than normal humans. 14 December 2016 (Campaign of bull-headed prudery) A national campaign seeks to make all US states prohibit sex between humans and nonhuman animals. This campaign seems to be sheer bull-headed prudery, using the perverse assumption that sex between a human and an animal hurts the animal. That’s true for some ways of having sex, and false for others. For instance, I’ve heard that some women get dogs to lick them off. That doesn’t hurt the dog at all. Why should it be prohibited? When male dolphins have sex with people, that doesn’t hurt the dolphins. Quite the contrary, they like it very much. Why should it be prohibited? I’ve also read that female gorillas sometimes express desire for sex with men. If they both like it, who is harmed? Why should this be prohibited? The proponents of this law claim that any kind of sex between humans and other species implies that the human is a "predator" that we need to lock up. That’s clearly false, for the cases listed above. Making a prohibition based on prejudice, writing it in an overbroad way, is what prissy governments tend to do where sex is concerned. The next step is to interpret it too strongly with "zero tolerance". Will people convicted of having dogs lick them off be required to live at least 1000 feet from any dogs? This law should be changed to prohibit only acts in which the animal is physically forced to have sex, or physically injured. 23 February 2017 (A "violent sex offender") The teenager who will have to register as a "violent sex offender" had a sexual meeting with a younger teenager. Why do people think there is something wrong with a sexual relationship between people of ages 13 and 18? The principal activity of human adolescents is sex. 26 May 2017 (Prudish ignorantism) A British woman is on trial for going to a park and inviting teenage boys to have sex with her there. Her husband acted as a lookout in case someone else passed by. One teenager allegedly visited her at her house repeatedly to have sex with her. None of these acts would be wrong in any sense, provided they took precautions against spreading infections. The idea that adolescents (of whatever sex) need to be "protected" from sexual experience they wish to have is prudish ignorantism, and making that experience a crime is perverse. 13 June 2017 (Sex offender registry) The sex offender registry treats any sexual crime as far worse than murder. 10 October 2017 (Laws against having sex with an animal) European countries are passing laws against having sex with an animal. (We are talking about sex practices that don’t physically hurt the animal.) These laws have no rational basis. We know that some animals enjoy sex with humans. Others don’t. But really, if you smear something on your genitals that tastes good to dogs, and have a dog lick you off, it harms no one. Why should this be illegal except mindless religion? 27 November 2017 (Roy Moore’s relationships) Senate candidate Roy Moore tried to start dating/sexual relationships with teenagers some decades ago. He tried to lead Ms Corfman step by step into sex, but he always respected "no" from her and his other dates. Thus, Moore does not deserve the exaggerated condemnation that he is receiving for this. As an example of exaggeration: one mailing referred to these teenagers as "children", even the one that was 18 years old. Many teenagers are minors, but none of them are children. The condemnation is surely sparked by the political motive of wanting to defeat Moore in the coming election, but it draws fuel from ageism and the fashion for overprotectiveness of "children". I completely agree with the wish to defeat Moore. Political Christianists such as Moore hold views that conflict essentially with human rights, just as political Islamists do. If Moore, with his extremist policies, gains public office again, he will harm millions of American women, and secondarily society as a whole. Ms Corfman says she was hurt afterward, and attributes this to feelings of guilt based on the belief that she had done something wrong (which, of course, she had not). Is this is another sign of Christianity at work? I sent a check to Doug Jones US Senate a few weeks ago. Please support his campaign too. You can mail a check here: (Address available at original link) 29 October 2017 (Pestering women) A famous theater director had a habit of pestering women, asking them for sex. As far as I can tell from this article, he didn’t try to force women into sex. When women persistently said no, he does not seem to have tried to punish them. The most he did was ask. He was a pest, but nothing worse than that. 30 April 2018 (UN peacekeepers in South Sudan) It sounds horrible: "UN peacekeepers accused of child rape in South Sudan." But the article makes it pretty clear that the "children" involved were not children. They were teenagers. What about "rape"? Was this really rape? Or did they have sex willingly, and prudes want to call it "rape" to make it sound like an injustice? We can’t tell from the article which one it is. Rape means coercing someone to have sex. Precisely because that is a grave and clear wrong, using the same name for something much less grave is a distortion. 17 July 2018 (The bullshitter’s flirting) We are now invited to despise the bullshitter for telling a 17-year-old woman at a party that he found her attractive. We can hardly assume that the bullshitter’s boasts were true. Even men who are usually honest on other topics have been known to lie about their sexual achievements. However, I wouldn’t assume they were false, or that he did an injustice to anyone at these parties. In a group of 50 models, there could well be some that would eagerly go to bed with a rich man, either to boost their careers or for a lark. If you condemn men for finding teenage female models attractive, you might as well condemn men for being heterosexual. The bully may be predatory, but it appears he didn’t display this overtly at those parties. There are indications that he arbitrarily chose the winners of the Miss USA beauty contest while he owned it. That would be a real wrong, since it would have made the contest dishonest. I understand the desire to condemn the bullshitter on every aspect of his life, but it is no excuse for ageism. If you can understand that we shouldn’t dictate people’s gender preferences, you should understand that we shouldn’t dictate their age preferences either. There are plenty of tremendously important reasons to condemn the bully. He is attacking workers’ rights, abortion rights, non-rich people’s pensions and medical care, the environment, human rights, and democracy, even the idea of truth. Let’s focus on those real reasons. 21 August 2018 (Age and attraction) Research found that men generally find females of age 18 the most attractive. This accords with the view that Stendhal reported in France in the 1800s, that a woman’s most beautiful years were from 16 to 20. Although this attitude on men’s part is normal, the author still wants to present it as wrong or perverted, and implicitly demands men somehow control their attraction to direct it elsewhere. Which is as absurd, and as potentially oppressive, as claiming that homosexuals should control their attraction and direct it towards to the other sex. Will men be pressured to undergo "age conversion therapy" intended to brainwash them to feel attracted mainly to women of their own age? Anti-Glossary Sexual assault: this term is so broad that using it is misleading. The term includes rape, groping, sexual harassment, and other acts. These acts are not merely different in degree. They are different in kind. Rape is a grave crime. Being groped is unpleasant but not as grave as robbery. Sexual harassment is a not an action at all, but rather a pattern of actions that constitutes economic unfairness. How can it make sense to group these behaviors things together? It never makes sense. News articles, studies, and laws should avoid that term. 23 September 2018 (Cody Wilson) Cody Wilson has been charged with hiring a "child" sex worker. Her age has not been announced, but I think she must surely be a teenager, not a child. Calling teenagers "children" in this context is a way of smearing people with normal sexual proclivities as "perverts". They have accused him of "sexual assault", a term so vague that it should never be used at all. With no details, we can’t tell whether the alleged actions deserve that term. What we do know is that the term is often used for a legal lie. She may have had — I expect, did have — entirely willing sex with him, and they would still call it "assault". I do not like the idea of 3D-printed guns, but that issue is entirely unrelated to this. 6 November 2018 (Sex according to porn) The unrealistic picture of sex presented in most porn harms men as well as women in their sex lives (though in different ways). Their sexual miseducation starts in adolescence, but many never learn better. Our society’s taboo cuts adolescents off from any way to learn about sexual relationships and lovemaking other than from porn and from other confused adolescents. Everyone learns the hard way, often slowly, and in many cases learns bad lessons. The more effective the taboo, the deeper the ignorance. In 18th century France, teenage girls of good family emerged totally sexually innocent from education in a convent. Totally innocent and totally exploitable (see Dangerous Liaisons). Contrast this with Marquesan society, where adolescents are not kept ignorant by a taboo on sex. They have various relationships with lovers of their choice, so they have many opportunities to see what pleases and what doesn’t. Any one lover can please them more, or please them less, but can’t mislead them — they have standards for comparison. In that society, even adolescents understand lovemaking better than a lot of American adults. Inevitably, everyone starts out ignorant; the question is, how can society offer people a path which leads them to learn to do things well, rather than learning painfully to do them badly. 14 February 2019 (Respecting people’s right to say no) Writer Yann Moix said that he cannot be attracted to women in their 50s, and people are condemning him, claiming he has an obligation to be attracted to them. You might as well demand that a homosexual be attracted to people not of the same sex. Or that a heterosexual be attracted to people that are of the same sex. There is no arguing about tastes. If we respect people’s right to say no, we should not rebuke them when they do. Of course, many people (especially men, but not only) despise those they find unattractive. That is a mean way to treat people who haven’t done anything wrong. But being unattracted by someone is not the same as despising per. Yann Moix understands this. 12 June 2019 (Declining sex rates) Many demographic categories report having sex less now than in the past. It might be due to the general stress and anxiety of life in the advanced countries. I suspect it is also due to the lack of any generally accepted way for men to express romantic or sexual interest in women. By "generally accepted", I mean that he can count on a woman who declines his interest not to revile him for expressing it that way. 30 July 2019 (Al Franken) Al Franken now regrets resigning from the Senate. Some senators that pushed him to resign now regret that too. The first (main) article does not state clearly whether Franken touched Tweeden in the process of making the photo, but it seems he did not. If that is correct, it was not a sexual act at all. It was self-mocking humor. The photograph depicted a fictional sexual act without her fictional consent, but making the photo wasn’t a sexual act. If it is true that he persistently pressured her to kiss him, on stage and off, if he stuck his tongue into her mouth despite her objections, that could well be sexual harassment. He should have accepted no for an answer the first time she said it. However, calling a kiss "sexual assault" is an exaggeration, an attempt to equate it to much graver acts, that are crimes. The term "sexual assault" encourages that injustice, and I believe it has been popularized specifically with that intention. That is why I reject that term. Meanwhile, Franken says he did not do those things, and the other actors he previously did the same USO skit with said it was not harassment, just acting. Tweeden’s store is clearly false in many details. Should we assume Tweeden was honest? With so many demonstrated falsehoods in her accusations, and given that she planned them with other right-wing activists, and that all of them follow a leader who lies as a tactic every day, I have to suspect that she decided to falsify accusations through exaggeration so as to kick a strong Democrat out of the Senate. I have no proof of that suspicion. It is possible that she made the accusations honestly. Also, in a hypothetical world, someone might really have done them. Supposing for the moment that those accusations were true, should Franken have resigned over them? I don’t think so. They are misjudgments, not crimes. Franken deserved the chance to learn from the criticism that surprised him. Zero tolerance is a very bad way to judge people. However, the most important point is to reject the position that if B feels hurt by what A said or did, then automatically A is wrong. People judged Franken that way, and he judged himself that way. But that way degrades the concept of "wrong" into a mere expression of subjective disapproval. What can legitimately be asserted subjectively can legitimately be ignored subjectively too. To judge A that way is to set B up as a tyrant. If B’s feelings were hurt, that’s unfortunate – but is that A’s fault? If so, was it culpable, or just a mistake? That is what we have to judge, and if we want others to think our judgments worth following, they must be based on objective facts and objective standards, including objective standards for what words and gestures objectively mean. Traister is wrestling with a solvable problem. She says, "When you change rules, you end up penalizing people who were caught behaving according to the old rules." Maybe people do, but that is a sign of carelessness. It isn’t really hard to change the rules and then judge old actions by the old rules. We just have to remember to do so. 27 August 2019 (Me-too frenzy) In "me-too" frenzy, crossed signals about sex can easily be inflated into "rape". If people rush to judgment, in an informal way, that can destroy a man’s career without any trial in which to clear his name. 21 September 2019 (Sex workers) Today’s Sex Workers, Like Their Victorian Sisters, Don’t Want "saving". Feminism today is drifting off the track into a campaign of prudery that harms everyone, except those who are asexual. 11 June 2019 (Stretching meaning of terms) Should we accept stretching the terms "sexual abuse" and "molestation" to include looking without touching? I do not accept it.


Subscribe to the comments RSS feed.

Comment #1 posted on 2021-04-12 16:58:50 by brian-in-ohio


Agree or disagree with RMS, at least we he does not hide his beliefs behind the moniker 'anonymous '.
Comment #2 posted on 2021-04-13 07:53:02 by Ken Fallon

Long history of supporting anonymous posts

Hi brian-in-ohio, The only requirement for posting to HPR is that the show is "of interest to Hackers". (And isn't spam, and meets the licensing terms). There is no requirement to be personally identified on HPR. While some contributors like myself use their real names, others like yourself use handles instead. I'm sure most of those who use handles do not do so to hide their identity - but some might. It's a moot point anyway because we know Bradley M. Kuhn was the author of the show. We don't know who posted it, but I don't particularly care. They could have posted the show under a fake user name and we would never know. There are quite a lot of shows posted that were controversial at the time, and were submitted by a host that never posted again. I feel that posting under the Anonymous username is more honest. It alerts the HPR community to the lack of implicit trust that comes with a (fake) real name. (It also means less work for the janitors as we don't need to create new users :-) ) In any event, Hacker Public Radio has long supported, and will continue to support anonymous posts, comments and other forms of interactions. We do this for many reasons, not least of which is that freedom of speech is not always without cost. Ken.
Comment #3 posted on 2021-04-13 20:50:23 by Reto


Hi, First of all this TTS (text to speech) voice is terrible I can hardly understand it, the one used by HPR is much better. Secondly, if I hear some information where I get the impression it is totally on one side, I want to hear the other side in order to build my opinon. Took me 20 minutes to find it, the other side, looks like the internet tries to hide it: Have you seen the episode of "The Orville" where your reputation and punishment is based on public opinion rather than from a court? It was scary! While this was fiction, does it now become reality and do you support this? Just some thoughts on what is going on here.
Comment #4 posted on 2021-04-14 16:02:00 by Ken Fallon

Interview with RMS/FSF ?

Hi Reto, The TTS (text to speech) engine used is espeak, and is available on many linux distros. It is relied upon by thousands with visual impairments, and those with reading disabilities - myself included. You must be new to HPR as we have been using espeak for years, and were only recently able to negotiate a contract with Lyn (text2wave/festival) after her noncompete-agreements from the podcast expired ;-). Unfortunately the site you posted left me wanting when it came to hearing the other side of the story. But as you say it can be difficult to find accurate information on the Internet, especially one that is reliable and trustworthy. I would always suggest to go to the source of truth first. In this case it's best to start with Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) itself. Sure enough on the main FSF page there are two articles "Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman"[1] and another "RMS addresses the free software community"[2] We have interviewed RMS on episode hpr0271[3] and hpr1116[4], so it would be great to get him on again to discuss this. Can you reach out to him and/or the FSF to see if they would be interested in recording another interview ? Be sure to mention we only use Free Software for the recording [5], and that we can release it under the CC-BY-NC-SA[6] if desired. I think the whole "not release in mp3" thing is no longer a problem, but if it is we can deal with that as well. In the meantime I will put together a similar show to this using their statements, and post it as a counter point show.
Comment #5 posted on 2021-04-14 16:02:12 by Ken Fallon

Interview with RMS/FSF ? - links

- [1] - [2] - [3] hpr0271 :: Stallman on Free Beer - [4] hpr1116 :: Interview with Richard Stallman - [5] -
Comment #6 posted on 2021-04-14 22:15:31 by Beeza

Richard Stallman

Few of us are so synomymous with the organisation we work for that any controversial remarks we make in public are likely to do lasting damage to the reputation of said organisation - especially if we were to subsequently resign and remain silent afterwards. That is not the case with RMS with regards to the FSF. He will forever be associated with the free software movement and, by implication, the FSF. On that basis engineering his resignation on the strength of his comments on social and political issues did nothing to protect the reputation of the free software movement. All it achieved was to salve the consciences of the other FSF board members. How damaged was the free software movement anyway? Most people outside the FLOSS world have never heard of RMS so his sometimes distasteful, but sometimes thought-provoking views would have no bearing on their decisions to adopt open source software. People in the FLOSS world know RMS for his eccentricities, along with his visionary genius. I suspect that while many publicly feign shock at his outbursts, for most it is just "RMS being RMS" followed by an attempt to get any images conjured up by some of his ideas out of their heads. If the FSF fundamentally stands for anything it is freedom, so to sideline somebody for exercising their right to personal opinions and free speech seems a bit incongruous. Given that getting rid of RMS was never going to distance the FSF from him, they would have been better to have taken the view - even in the form of public statements if necessary - that other FSF board members abhor some of his views on non-technical matters but totally support his right to hold and express those views. In these days of "cancel culture" when people are dismissed from jobs or prevented from speaking in public for fear of what they might say it would have been a refreshing change to see an organisation defending the right to free speech instead of just taking the path of least resistance.
Comment #7 posted on 2021-04-16 01:10:58 by Torao


Nobody is saying Stallman can't say having "consensual" sex with a 12 year old doesn't harm the kid. But nobody who isn't actually brain damaged should defend it nor is anybody actually forced to associate with him because of "free speech". It doesn't violate any free speech value to say you can believe whatever despicable things you want, you can advocate for any despicable thing you want, but nobody else is obligated to support you or be allied with you. It's not cancel culture. It's being responsible for the ignorance he spews culture. As for how the FSF is damaged for it, look at how many organizations have pulled their support. Nobody is bigger than an organization unless the organization allows itself to be subsumed to a cult of personality. It rarely works out well. Part of the reason that the FSF is useless is because they have allowed themselves to be so beholden to a useless repugnant toad like Stallman who pushes a majority of people away. If you want an idea to grow, it helps not to be led by somebody who intentionally spews reprehensible nonsense that pushes everybody else away. Stallman is a toxic excuse for a human being. You want Floss to have a chance to grow? Don't let it be led by a guy who intentionally says things that are considered morally repugnant by the majority of the public.
Comment #8 posted on 2021-04-19 19:45:40 by Cfish

The responsibility of leadership

I have been a a GNU/Linux user for around 2.5 year now and I have been a fan of RMS for much of that time. I have heard about people thinking Stallman is kind of weird, but chalked it up to differences in political opinion, or his refusal to meet people where they are. This is my first time hearing about some of his gross opinions. As a leader in the free software movement, he should NOT be turning people away with these opinions. To be perfectly clear, I stand with the survivors of sexual assault, and I stand with anyone who has put their trust in the supervision of an adult who would betray that trust for sexual gratification. The GNU/Linux community is a better place when we treat each other respectfully and with compassion. We don't need any one person in our community as much as we need the community itself.

Leave Comment

Note to Verbose Commenters
If you can't fit everything you want to say in the comment below then you really should record a response show instead.

Note to Spammers
All comments are moderated. All links are checked by humans. We strip out all html. Feel free to record a show about yourself, or your industry, or any other topic we may find interesting. We also check shows for spam :).

Provide feedback
Your Name/Handle:
Anti Spam Question: What does the P in HPR stand for ?