EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

09.17.20

The Quandary of ‘Ethical’ Sponsors and One’s Ability to Criticise Them (Otherwise It’s a Potential Bribe in Exchange for Censorship of Critics)

Posted in Finance, Free/Libre Software, FSF, Google at 11:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: When Free software advocacy groups are indebted to companies that greatly harm people’s freedom (including privacy) we have to ask ourselves questions regarding morality and ethics because money isn’t inherently evil, it depends who or where it comes from (on what implicit conditions)

THE term “Sponsors” (or “Patrons”) is supposed to sound inherently different from “Bosses” or even “Masters” (apparently the latter is now a politically-sensitive and potentially offensive term that must never be used, except in the context of slavery). Aren’t those just euphemisms?

“Is Google money reconcilable in a Free software advocacy group?”Over the past month or so we’ve published dozens of articles on this subject alone, at times taking note of FSFE sponsors and FSF sponsors. Google used to be a top FSF sponsor for a number of years and Google is still by far the biggest sponsor of the FSFE.

Is Google money reconcilable in a Free software advocacy group? Here is what the founder of the FSF, Richard Stallman, told me 6 years ago:


These were the FSF’s sponsors the year I conducted the above interview:

FSF patrons 2014

So, it’s not hard to see that Stallman was willing to criticise his top sponsor. Or at least his organisation’s top source of funding (for that year, previous years, and the following couple of years).

German EuroBased on some research, it was only in 2017 that Google stopped sponsoring the FSF (completely), either because the FSF rejected the money or Google chose not to give any. So it doesn’t seem likely that the turnaround moment was something Stallman said or did; contrast this with the FSFE and notice which years had asterisks in them (Google was always the top sponsor since 2013, inclusive, to the point of accounting for the lion’s share of revenues):

2012:

FSFE and Google 2012

2013:

FSFE and Google 2013

2014:

FSFE and Google 2014

2015:

FSFE and Google 2015

2016:

FSFE and Google 2016

2017:

FSFE and Google 2017

2018:

FSFE and Google 2018

2019:

FSFE and Google 2019

Present:

fFSFE and Google

Google’s money goes notoriously far, even privacy advocates like the EFF.

Debian (through SPI) was, especially in recent years, picking up cheques not only from Google (very big cheques) but also from Microsoft, for 4 consecutive years in fact. Does that mean that a certain Code of Conduct can be misused to punish Google and Microsoft critics? It’s definitely not impossible or implausible. Some people receive a salary out of that money. They don’t wish to put that money at risk. From what we can gather, the expulsion (first demotion) of Daniel Pocock was at least indirectly a result of what he said and did at the FSFE (candidly speaking to his constituents) and his criticism of Google, which he had previously worked with for years (under the GSoC umbrella). If we allow companies like these to ‘donate’ (it’s not a charity, they want something in return) about 0.0001% (millionth) of their annual revenue to institutions where that money is about 20% of the total revenue (several people’s salaries), how are we to prevent the likes of the FSF and FSFE from becoming a Linux Foundation-like failure (betraying or neglecting their own goals in pursuit of financial self-justification/gratification)?

People won’t donate for long or even provide moral support if they feel like the Linux Foundation is a GitHub/Microsoft outsourcer and the FSFE is like a Google lobby/front group looking for individuals to add/lend money towards this group’s objectives. This raises serious legitimate questions about morality of sponsorships in general, especially from those so large that they diminish the impact of individual contributors, rendering them more or less disposable.

09.15.20

RMS Really IS The Father of “Open Source”

Posted in BSD, Free/Libre Software, FSF, OSI at 7:24 pm by Guest Editorial Team

By figosdev

Father

Summary: Keith Bostic explains that Richard Stallman (RMS) played a role in BSD becoming free

I will often put the conclusion and point I’m making right in the title. This time, I consider the conclusion far less important than the facts behind it.

The title is tongue-in-cheek; I know rms HATES being called “The Father of Open Source” but the facts still point to this being sort of true. I wrote this to share the facts, but an article still needs a title.

“My move years ago to Free Software from Open Source was based on the former being more real and more honest than the latter.”RMS of course, is the father of Free Software. When I started out with Open Source, I found too many inconsistencies that I often summarise as “Open Source rewriting history”, which is to say it lies to people. My move years ago to Free Software from Open Source was based on the former being more real and more honest than the latter.

Credit where credit is due, for the things OSI co-founder Perens has been candid about. Eric S. Raymond (ESR) has stated his opinion on various occasions, that the position of rms in all this history was overstated — and he has frequently damned rms with faint praise.

This is part of the rhetoric of Open Source, and I find it terribly petty. They, in turn, react to people trying to set the record straight (the record they lie about) as US being petty. But the bulk of how I feel about it can nonetheless be summed up in the letter Perens wrote to the Debian community in 1999, where he says that Open Source “overshadowed” Free Software, and that this was “never fair”.

Having gradually become disgusted with Open Source, even calling it a scam on several occasions, I think we got many glimpses of the present several years ago. Today, even some people who use the term “Open Source” (thus giving OSI more power to speak, while Free Software loses notoriety for its work that OSI co-opted) are disillusioned with the Linux Foundation (LF) while I consider LF to be a perfect example of what “Open Source” has always been.

Techrights is hosting old Debian emails that are already referring to source being “Open” in 1996, most of the “Open Source Definition” had already been written as the Debian Free Software Guidelines (by the same author), and OpenBSD forked from NetBSD in 1995 — years before “Open Source” was “coined”.”However, when I complain about “Open Source” I am complaining about the same thing Perens did in 1999 — the “Open Source” that began when Christine Peterson “coined” the term in 1998. Techrights is hosting old Debian emails that are already referring to source being “Open” in 1996, most of the “Open Source Definition” had already been written as the Debian Free Software Guidelines (by the same author), and OpenBSD forked from NetBSD in 1995 — years before “Open Source” was “coined”.

It’s no revelation to OpenBSD developers (or to pre-SCO Caldera, who used the term “Open” for two products in reference to the source being available) that Open isn’t new, but it’s news to some of the people who think Open Source (largely) started in early 1998.

Since going back to review the history of Open Source (as OSI-led) is what made me leave it behind for something more honest, I have also become increasingly curious about the pre-history of OSI-led Open Source, namely the BSD world.

Father and sonI don’t as of yet put pre-OSI “Open” in the same category as the BRAND “Open Source” (or OSI), because I’m not at all certain that’s fair to do. I mean everything I’ve complained about with regards to Open Source is from 1998 onwards. So what about the rest?

Of course Perens and ESR can have the credit for OSI, and sometimes OSI has taken the credit for things Free Software did (and to be fair, Perens and Eric Raymond were certainly contributors to Free Software, even before OSI was founded. Maybe Raymond felt he never got enough credit for his contributions).

But this doesn’t answer obvious (for some) questions about who we can thank or credit for the freedom that BSD offers.

“I admire rms a great deal, but you don’t have to like him to admit when he has a point.”This is a new chapter of history in my experience, even if it’s an old one to those who were there. So the conclusions really DON’T matter as much as the facts that lead to them. Still, as I work on getting an overall picture, the exploration is fascinating. Marshall McKusick (Often referred to as Kirk McKusick) gives interesting lectures on the history of BSD, and those aren’t the only history I’ve paid attention to but they certainly help.

I was at one point directed to a quote from Keith Packard, of X11 fame:

Unfortunately, Richard Stallman, the author of the GPL and quite an interesting individual lived at 5405 DEC square, he lived up on the sixth floor I think? Had an office up there; he did not have an apartment. And we knew him extremely well. He was a challenging individual to get along with. He would regularly come down to our offices and ask us, or kind of rail at us, for not using the GPL.

This did not make a positive impression on me, this was my first interactions with Richard directly and I remember thinking at the time, “this guy is a little, you know, I’m not interested in talking to him because he’s so challenging to work with.”

And so, we should have listened to him then but we did not because, we know him too well, I guess, and met him as well.

He really was right, we need to remember that!

These are familiar sentiments for people who have paid attention to Bruce Perens over the years (both for and against rms) both publicly and in Debian-private. I admire rms a great deal, but you don’t have to like him to admit when he has a point.

I wouldn’t have written an article just to quote Keith Packard. It’s not that Packard isn’t notable, he definitely is — it’s that this quote by itself “isn’t news” enough to inspire an article about it. What I was looking for was a better understanding of the differences between BSD and rms, or BSD and the FSF. And I know there are plenty; I greatly admire the work of Theo de Raadt (which I use as I type this) but he has often railed against rms and Free Software — and I am still very sincerely interested in getting “BSD’s side of the story” on all this. I avoided OpenBSD for a long time because of the song “Home to Hypocrisy”, which lampoons rms as both a hypocrite and as being unreasonable.

“The head of FreeBSD (of their foundation?) wants to work more closely with Linux developers. I don’t think that’s going to yield any fruit, I think Linux is going to become more corporate and useless and co-opted.”At a time when Open Source has worked so hard to discredit rms, I certainly don’t feel like that’s fair. On the other hand, I really do appreciate the work de Raadt has done (I don’t think he even wrote that song) and I don’t automatically hold it against him that he and rms have had their differences about philosophy — OSI came about later. The more I read about BSD’s justifications for their way of doing things, the more tolerable I find it. Note I said tolerable — I did not say I entirely agree with it.

What I have said about this is that BSD is not (ever) going to do things the FSF way or the rms way. The head of FreeBSD (of their foundation?) wants to work more closely with Linux developers. I don’t think that’s going to yield any fruit, I think Linux is going to become more corporate and useless and co-opted. But who knows what is really meant when the head of the FreeBSD Foundation (not de Raadt, who started OpenBSD) talks about working more closely with Linux developers?

I know some of de Raadt’s feelings — because he speaks very candidly about them — regarding copylefting BSD software. He’s NOT a fan. He questions both the legality and the morality of doing so; but rather than paint this as de Raadt vs. rms, as de Raadt may (unintentionally or deliberately) do, I think of this quandary as BSD vs. Free Software. And not in the sense that it’s antagonistic, (which it sometimes is) but I’m extremely interested in both the legality and ethics (“morality”) of doing so, because I think it’s a good direction for Free Software and regardless of what my opinion is, it’s EXACTLY what is already being done.

“Yes, he is the person who coined POSIX, but BSD predates POSIX. It predates the FSF and even GNU.”I happen to support it. And although de Raadt has his objections, I’m not yet convinced that BOTH rms and say, Eben Moglen (or for that matter, emulatorman) have this wrong. I want to understand the BSD position a lot better, but that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily going to agree with de Raadt on this.

I don’t expect cooperation from BSD — I’m NOT out to convert BSD into doing anything they’ve been invited to do a thousand times. They have their way, Free Software has its way. What I support is Free Software doing (within reason and ethical limitations) what it needs to do to survive. That’s why I continue to support adding to BSD and copylefting the additions.

But my interest in understanding BSD’s position is no less sincere. They have a complaint, I do not doubt their honesty (I find BSD far more sincere than I find Open Source in general, even if very many people consider BSD to be PART of Open Source) and even if it takes years I would like to understand their position well enough that I COULD advocate it myself, IF I wanted to. That doesn’t mean I will, but it’s never been a boon for me to misunderstand the positions on either side. I want intimate knowledge of BSD’s real position — despite the obvious fact that “BSD” is far from a single entity; as much as (or even more than) with “Linux”. This “position” will certainly have facets.

But getting back to the central theme of this article, as well as back to what McKusick has said about BSD history, he credits Keith Bostic, (Not to be confused with Keith Packard) the “third” person hired to work on BSD in the early days. What does he credit Bostic with? Among other things, making the whole of BSD freely redistributable. Several people worked on that of course, once the push and then the decision was made. It’s Bostic who is credited with the pushing.

To me that’s extraordinary; I mean here you have this really wonderful OS that I feel is important to the future of Free Software (more than Linux at this point) and it’s an important part of the past and present as well. And this Bostic sounds like the rms of BSD! So what could I learn if I started there and tried to find out more?

I may find more and until then, I have a quote directly from Bostic himself. I asked him about it, after reading this FSF page: “People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a version of GNU, like GNU/Linux. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped persuade them…”

I was a bit sceptical. I really consider rms to be one of the more honest people you can find in the tech world, but I wouldn’t trust him (even based on my own personal experience) to NEVER a. overstate or understate something or b. ignore / dismiss a detail that I consider very important. I think people who disagree with him tend to overstate these, at least a bit unfairly, but though I consider rms MORE honest than most people, these are the boundaries where being sceptical is a real possibility.

So I asked Bostic himself. Originally, his reply was:

“It’s true. John Gillmore & Richard Stallman convinced me that opening up the sources was worthwhile, we wouldn’t have done that without their urging.”

He continued to spell the name that way later but I’m fairly confident he was referring to John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

This is a huge deal to me, because I’ve long noted the penchant Open Source has of painting rms has a has-been, as someone whose contributions to freedom are incidental or overstated — he is the Chief GNUsiance after all, and some people would prefer you think of him as Merely a nuisance — a busybody, an insufferable know-it-all sticking his nose into YOUR work.

“As for why it matters that RMS was part of this, as I’ve said before — the reason some people (even at the FSF, and in at least the more modern variety / chapter / establishment of Open Source) people try to downlplay Stallman’s role is so they can downplay the importance of his movement — You know, Us.”His awards and recognitions are many, though I’m more impressed by his work than his recognition. And yet in getting into this history, I honestly expected to find a very vital part of Free Software (some say “Open Source”) history that we CAN’T give rms much hand in. Yes, he is the person who coined POSIX, but BSD predates POSIX. It predates the FSF and even GNU. So surely, (I thought before asking Bostic) someone is exaggerating Stallman’s role, right? I mean, what does rms really have to do with BSD?

When I asked if I could quote him, Bostic clarified what he had already said. He said of course the collaboration between BSD and the FSF was limited (I would assume it was more limited than the collaboration with Debian, which we are learning more about these days) but there was cross-talk, and that “I’d credit John Gillmore more than Richard in our push towards Open Source, but both were there, and John was certainly working with Richard, IIRC.”

This is very cool as well. I didn’t know Gilmore or the EFF (unless there is another person and I have this wrong) had any connection to this stuff either.

I already know (from the talks McKusick gave, circa 2010/2011 at various conferences, which he probably still does) that the goal of liberating BSD came later, probably in the 80s or even the 90s after the FSF was founded. The famous lawsuit that followed also came later, which was still going on when Linus Torvalds announced Linux (Torvalds has said that if BSD hadn’t been tied up in litigation, Linux probably would have never been written. But that’s already a common quote).

As for why it matters that RMS was part of this, as I’ve said before — the reason some people (even at the FSF, and in at least the more modern variety/chapter/establishment of Open Source) people try to downlplay Stallman’s role is so they can downplay the importance of his movement — You know, Us. Attacking rms, as Techrights published well before he was ousted, is a goal as part of attacking Free Software in general. Downplaying rms downplays the importance of freedom itself. “Don’t listen to these guys, they’re spouting the same garbage Stallman says”.

Of course BSD (broadly speaking) has their own take(s) on freedom, not entirely in line with the FSF’s, or Stallman’s, and which sometimes will overlap more with the thing that “Open Source” now refers to.

“I consider history more important to the present than it is to the past. Without it, the present is missing context.”I am still interested in learning more about that. But in trying to do exactly that, I learned that rms has had influences even in ways which I would not have guessed.

The conclusion of this article is not the most substantial aspect of it, by far. I think the details and the facts are pretty interesting, in light of the things some people say. I still think Keith Bostic is a very big deal as well, and it was an honour to be able to talk to him. I would still thank him and credit him for his effort in liberating BSD — I kind of doubt Gilmore and rms would have gotten quite as far in the BSD world without Bostic as part of the interface!

But that’s a common theme in the BSD world (and the tech world, broadly speaking) as when it was up to someone at DARPA to evaluate BSD’s TCP/IP stack vs. BB&N’s, and the “neutral third party” chosen by DARPA was someone who the BSD devs had already worked with. It’s good to have advocates and people who understand your work, even when your offering is already great.

“As far as Linux, I’m a supporter of all Open Source systems… If you create a tool that people find useful and that moves us all forward, well, I’m going to support you in that!” — Keith Bostic

I consider history more important to the present than it is to the past. Without it, the present is missing context. This benefits some, but truth (and therefore justice) benefits more from context and a fair treatment of facts. I want to do both BSD, and rms (thus our movement) justice — and that means a superficial take on facts will get us less than a reasonable study of history will. I find these things interesting, but not as trivia. The “big picture” matters now as much as ever, and the details (with care) may yet get us there.

Long live rms, Long live BSD, and happy hacking.

Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)

09.13.20

In Screenshots: Corporations That Sponsor the Free Software Movement Are Rarely Compatible With This Movement’s Vision/Objective

Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux at 10:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Recent (a cautionary tale): Something Very Fishy About the Way the Linux Foundation Puts Its Leadership ‘on Sale’

LF corporate patrons: Wanna buy a seat?

Summary: The money of proprietary computing companies isn’t helping the cause of software freedom, even if it seems to be helping institutions that claim to stand for us and represent our interests

FSF top sponsors 2020:

FSF patrons 2020

FSF top sponsors 2019:

FSF patrons 2019

FSF top sponsors 2018:

FSF patrons 2018

FSF top sponsors 2017:

FSF patrons 2017-again

FSF top sponsors 2016:

FSF patrons 2016

FSF top sponsors 2015:

FSF patrons 2015

FSF top sponsors 2014:

FSF patrons 2014

Note: When I interviewed RMS regarding Google [1, 2] I did not know Google was the top FSF sponsor (to the tune of one whole salary, or about $50,000 per annum, i.e. more than any other company at the time)

FSF top sponsors 2011:

FSF patrons 2011

FSF top sponsors 2010:

FSF patrons 2010

09.12.20

Richard Stallman Still Works to Improve the Freedom of the Widely-Used RasPi (Produced in the United Kingdom by the Raspberry Pi Foundation)

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux, Hardware, Interview at 11:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

New video from/with Mr. RasPi, Eben Upton

Summary: “As of December 2019, more than thirty million [Raspberry Pi] boards have been sold,” according to Wikipedia and Richard Stallman (RMS) is working to make them more freedom-respecting; Eben Upton takes his advice to heart, making the vision of FSF hardware endorsements (RYF) seem increasingly fruitful and promising

THE “RMS RULES”, as Mr. Raspberry Pi has put it, are being taken seriously as blobs are gradually being removed from new generations of Raspberry Pi (the original was released 8 years ago). A Raspberry Pi computer is currently being used to monitor Techrights and issue visual alerts (with lights and sounds) in case of critical issues/downtimes.

“A Raspberry Pi computer is currently being used to monitor Techrights and issue visual alerts (with lights and sounds) in case of issues/downtimes.”RMS might not be publicly visible anymore (there are very few videos of him from 2020, COVID partly to blame), but he’s still active by E-mail and other means. I speak to him on occasions. Word on the street is (to borrow slang/idiom), he’s waiting for the right moment to make a comeback. He’ll be back (not just as GNU’s head but also public speaker and so on). Don’t strike him out as “retired”, as some have, as he’s extremely active — albeit not in the public eye — for a person in so-called ‘retirement’. His ‘cancellation’ last year failed to complete (he’s in charge of GNU) and it was based on distortions, lies and deception (even internally, inside the FSF).

When I last met RMS in person (a long time ago) I suggested to him that hardware vendors should add a physical switch to laptops’ microphones. He took my suggestion seriously. He’s definitely picky or extremely selective in whose advice he accepts, but people whom he trusts he can be exceptionally amicable and attentive to. The world around him is generally hostile towards him because he thinks for himself and disagrees with many aspects of the status quo. Like Linus Torvalds (awful to compare those two men, I’m well aware) he’s not shy or reluctant to say outrageous things provided they’re factually accurate. That’s what typically gets both of them in trouble. We ought to protect both persons’ freedom of speech. Otherwise the 'speech police' will work to oppress all of us — by extrapolation so to speak — by targeting perceived leaders or influencers, even if just to “set an example…” (deterrence)

The Free software movement (extension of the ‘hacker culture’) was established not to obey authority but to disobey corporate power, question abuse (or misuse) of power, and liberate geeks from financial rulers.

[Meme] The Risk of Having Corporate Patrons is Disgrace by Association and Loss of True Independence (Freedom to Criticise Anyone)

Posted in FSF, IBM at 9:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

tl;dr: they have less control over their image and sometimes their agenda/steering as well (risk of financial withdrawal or conditional renewal is a form of influence and instrument of leverage)

Cartman Bed Meme: FSF patrons
Going back a few years. IBM, a Donald Trump booster/collaborator (long tradition of even worse things), had the audactity to demand more diversity and tolerance from the FSF (which is actually more diverse than IBM). Cautionary tale: Linux Foundation.

Summary: Why public interest groups must never get into the “sponsorship” business (especially when it comes to large businesses with very large ‘donations’ which may come with implicit strings attached, no matter if it’s disguised as “patron” or “supporter” rather than “sponsor”)

09.10.20

Techrights at DistroTube

Posted in Europe, Finance, Free/Libre Software, FSF, FUD at 8:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: This morning’s segment from DistroTube regarding the Linux Foundation, the FSFE, and the FSF (including RMS being deserving of an FSF award)

The Fake ‘Door Sign’ Used to Frame Richard Stallman and Misrepresent Him One Year Ago (the Media Never Corrected This Slanderous Allegation)

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux at 4:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

False and ruinous assertions never corrected by so-called ‘professional’ journalists…

Wildebeest

Summary: Richard Stallman (RMS) is still being defamed in the media, which never bothered correcting obvious falsehoods and libel about RMS

THE founder of GNU was ‘canceled’ last September; they say he’s waiting for the right moment to make a comeback. Weeks ago he did a public interview about cryptocurrencies, but he’s not saying much about Free software. At least for now…

“Sadly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, this libel sticks.”Earlier today we posted a video; it’s almost an hour long and it contains an inaccuracy. Namely this:

RMS sign was false

People were spreading/putting this forth, based on the original rant. But here’s the story behind it — the true story, as also noted here.

RMS sign explained

Sadly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, this libel sticks. Even 12 months down the line. This morning I checked a number of so-called ‘news’ sites (articles from what the above calls “Low grade ‘journalists’ and internet mob”). A lot of these so-called ‘news’ sites still carry (UNcorrected) this slander against RMS, wrongly stating that he wrote a a sign saying “Knight for Justice (Also: Hot Ladies).” Actually it was an act of vandalism. SJVN still has a slanderous article over at ZDNet stating that RMS supported what Epstein had done (no, that’s Bill Gates who did that, RMS had repeatedly called Epstein a rapist!).

“If the enforcement of such policy becomes about safety of companies such as Google — safety from critics — then we’ve got it all backwards. We need to defend volunteers’ freedom to criticise Power, not vice versa.”But who cares about truth, right? Right now I have some high-profile troll slandering me as if I condone rape. He did something similar to RMS and to Linus Torvalds, hoping to oust both (he failed repeatedly, even whilst collaborating with very militant feminists). He nowadays receives his salary from Google. Seems apt. It’s about money, not integrity or ethics/morality. People like RMS are “inconveniences” to them…

We currently have in the Free software world/community two kinds of activists: real ones and astroturfers. One group works for actual justice, whereas the latter attacks the former group on behalf of their GAFAM (+Intel) employers. The corporate pseudo ‘activists’ like to pretend that all of the world’s problems boil down to something like words… terms like “master” and “whitelist” (as if all would be great if only we banned those words). We’ll continue to counter this nonsense and these pseudo ‘activists’, who already dominate CoC committees such as the Linux Foundation‘s. Earlier today we reposted an article which said, based on many years experiencing GSoC (as an organiser): “When people talk about creating a “safe space”, they appear to be creating a safe space for corporations like Google to exert influence.”

The concept of anti-harassment is understandable because harassment does exist and must be dealt with. “Safe space” typically means safety from potential offence due to uncomfortable viewpoints, not necessarily racism and sexism (see what happened to Linus Torvalds at DebConf). If the enforcement of such policy becomes about safety of companies such as Google — safety from critics — then we’ve got it all backwards. We need to defend volunteers’ freedom to criticise Power, not vice versa. Because volunteers aren’t mere lemmings to be exploited; they have beliefs, they have feelings, and they have human rights.

09.09.20

One Year Ago: ‘Nerd on the Street’ on Richard Stallman Getting ‘Canceled’

Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux, Videos at 9:27 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: After an MIT-Epstein scandal implicating Bill Gates Richard Stallman came under many attacks, causing him to forcibly ‘resign’; the above video remarks on what happened

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts