It's not about his opinions, it's about his ineffective and misguided leadership. Why is GNU still fighting the same battles from thirty years ago when new ones have emerged that they're not even paying attention to?
GNU is becoming the PETA of software, and it's not a good look.
As a GNU hacker (and co-maintainer of GNU Guix) statements like this make me sad. It is very unfortunate that Richard Stallman's personality is casting a shadow on the GNU project, which was started by him but is really a loose connection of projects that share ideas that were outlined in the GNU Manifesto.
I see GNU Guix in the tradition of other GNU software like Emacs or the Hurd that aim to give users more power and to remove arbitrary limitations. Emacs is probably the epitome of a hackable system that lets the user shape the software according to their own needs to an extend that is extreme and rarely found in any other system.
The Hurd aims to allow regular users to do things that in traditional Unices requires super-user privileges. It aims to remove arbitrary obstacles to free users from the unhealthy power dynamics of the user/admin division.
Guix gives users powerful tools to manage their software environments without having to beg admins, and to easily package software variants without having to depend on professional distributors. At the same time no user can harm another user on shared systems. Guix gives users the ability to take advantage of software freedom, by making it really easy to hack on software in a user-controlled reliable system.
When seen from this perspective, the GNU system that individual software projects are contributing to is a collection of tools that liberate users from helplessness due to unnecessary restrictions. This common goal defines the modern GNU project these days, and I think it is very unfortunate to overlook this because of Richard Stallman and his quirks, his sometimes dictatorial style, or his harmful attitudes towards important social aspects of free software.
I appreciate Richard's past work immensely, but I do not consider him representative of the GNU project that I work on, nor do I think his leadership style is benefiting the project.
Give GNU a chance based on the project's merits and its goals. Long live Free Software --- copyleft and non-copyleft alike!
The longer he's the figurehead of GNU, the longer he has any say in your projects, the longer he'll poison the well. This "joke" fiasco touched off a firestorm of commentary from people that are quite clear that he's been highly problematic for decades now.
You don't want someone toxic running GNU. Microsoft managed to shed their sweaty gorilla and look what's happened to them. They're not fully redeemed, but they stopped fighting and destroying.
Just as the early FSF cared not for tradition, for history, for the investment of time and energy on the part of others, they should not care today if they want to be a radical force for change. Keep that spirit. Tear down anything worth destroying because it gets in the way of what's right.
The important question, the only question, for an organization that promotes actual change is what can he do to improve things tomorrow.
Sadly we've lost Aaron Swartz, but that's the caliber of person you need today. Fearless, energetic, passionate, and fighting the right fights from the front lines. Aaron will be missed, but the FSF and GNU should be looking for, encouraging, motivating the next Aarons no matter what their background is.
I'm still wishing for a world where all electronics hardware and software is open source. Can't really visualize an industry like that be economically functional, but I hope someone does. My hope is with GNU.
That's what GNU is doing today with their stubborn fights about licensing when there's far bigger problems emerging.
How about a right to privacy? How about a right to timely patches for their Linux-based phones? How about a right to repair hardware running GPL software? How about a right to know if your device has security faults?
I can make software that mines the personal emails of dissidents, runs facial recognition on hacked webcams, and ruins lives, and that's all fine as far as GNU's concerned so long as I give out the source code to anyone who asks.
That seems...problematic.
Also, GNU is not RMS, and RMS is not GNU.
(Note, I came to this conclusion after reading about a bunch of his technical accomplishments, which I can see are awesome, even if the obvious megalomania evidently occasionally dampens their effects.
I think his work is fantastic, his politics are largely reasonable - but I think his self-obsession is often the driver behind a large amount of damaging and counterproductive behaviour.
Politics is the art of compromise - not convincing everybody you're a saint while alienating your natural allies.)
[0]: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/a6ebb50040c5862c/
So good job.
As long as RMS is such a prominent figure the GNU/FSF organization there's no separation.
David Bowie made predictions far more profound than Stallman, and they came from a place of genuine concern, not tin-foil hattery of the GNU variety: https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/11/10753158/david-bowie-inte...
I'd rather have people that cared and were on the right path, picking the right battles, than assholes who are technically correct but their observations are ultimately irrelevant to the larger fight.
Most of the time when people object to GNU or rms they fail to convey that they understand what software freedom is or how continually relevant software freedom is today. I'd bet that the majority of threads on these (overwhelmingly corporate) repeater sites are easily handled by stressing how important a user's software freedom is. Every DRM, proprietary software (Windows ignores user settings, this new device from $VENDOR spies on its users, etc.) is easily dismissed by getting into the same discussion about how software freedom would allow the user to alter the software, protect their privacy, treat their friends and neighbors better by sharing improved versions of the software, inspect and modify the software (or have someone they trust do it for them), and run the programs when they want (instead of losing access when a proprietor feels like ending "support"). Snowden readily credits free software for his success in leaking sensitive NSA documents to us all (docs which still make media stories years later). Three cheers for software freedom, rms, and Snowden!
Posts like the parent post tell me sites like these are the thing losing relevance by showing how ineffective public moderation is and how unacceptable it is to dare to say something not echoed in corporate tech media.
