Article by figosdev

Summary: "First -- before it even comes up -- I recently talked about Richard Stallman's website being "hacked" -- we don't know exactly what happened there, but nobody was trying to imply that outsiders had anything to do with it."

Since I've raised the ire of someone apparently associated with DEF CON on Twitter, I thought I'd clarify a couple things I hoped were clear already:

First -- before it even comes up -- I recently talked about Richard Stallman's website being "hacked" -- we don't know exactly what happened there, but nobody was trying to imply that outsiders had anything to do with it.

Personally, I think it was someone who already had access (so "hacked" was a casually-chosen and technically inaccurate word). I never mentioned "hackers" there, but I don't believe there was a compromise of security of any kind (perhaps there was, but it's not what I actually suspect happened).

I wouldn't even bother clarifying that, if I hadn't just read a tweet from someone apparently associated with DEF CON. At first I was confused by this (what did they think I said about hackers?) but many hours later, I went looking for the actual quote and figured out what they read.

Second, and probably more importantly, I didn't "blame hackers" for what has happened to the GNU project. That was a simple misreading of the line I wrote. What I said (you can read the full article here) is that rms built a house "for all hackers" (his definition of the word) and this is the part people are obviously misreading:

"What I dispute is that you have any right whatsoever, after helping rms build a house for all hackers…

(Yes, God Damn You, ALL hackers — just because you want to be the thought police and say he doesn’t kowtow to people exactly the way you want, doesn’t change the fact that he HAS IN FACT welcomed people"

The emphasis here is on (Stallman welcoming) "ALL" hackers, and the "Damn You" part was directed at people who argued he was not welcoming to certain groups (of hackers).

I realise that anybody can take offense to his personality and feel unwelcome, though I side with those who have come from each group and defended him, pointing out the ways in which he not only treated them as anybody else, but encouraged them to be "hackers" for the GNU project.

So no -- I did not blame "hackers" for the fall of the GNU project. I blamed a handful of GNU maintainers, but this line was completely misread. I was saying that GNU was a house rms built for ALL hackers (people from every group of people, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc.)

I hope this helps put the statement back in the context it was intended in.

"GNU is Open Source" (where I mention Richard Stallman's website) could easily be my last story for Techrights for quite a while at least. Over time I've said what I want to say, I've offered everything I can think of in terms of solutions.

I've said what I think of the present, near future, and more distant future. Only the more distant future gives me much hope for Free Software. I do recommend people continue to fight for freedom, if only so their political muscles don't atrophy. I don't know if there's anything else to say about Free Software. But if there is, it will probably have to be someone else who writes it.

Long live rms, and (as I've said several times in stories for Techrights...) Happy Hacking. ⬆

Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (public domain)