Comments

• Canta

  2019-12-13 17:07:14

  "GPLv3 is a patch". Fine. And the fifth freedom is not? How would you implement the fifth freedom, if not bay a new GPL version, nor any other not-the-gplv2 tool added to the equation? So... What's their crime here again there? It's not clear if you're claiming political responsibility from the FSF, or their inability to understand some technical issue, or bad faith/praxis, or a mix of it all.
  
  Also, please be specific about at least SOME (or ANY) lie from the FSF. Otherwise, it's very difficult to take this seriously. I'll tell you why: every party on every conflict on every place in the entire human history has someone saying that their opposition are all liars. It's so much like that, that today "they're wrong" may be a much more strong concept than "they're liars".
  
  That said, yeah, we need a million more Free Software organizations, and stop relying on Papa Stallman as some kind of good intentions encarnation in the software field: ethics is much more than just about "being good people", but also about how to make things sustainable in the long run.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2019-12-14 06:20:34

  Reply from this article's author (not me) follows:
  
  

  "GPLv3 is a patch". Fine. And the fifth freedom is not?
  
  nothing wrong with gpl3 being a patch. its a good patch.
  
  "How would you implement the fifth freedom, if not bay a new GPL version, nor any other not-the-gplv2 tool added to the equation?"
  
  not sure the licenses need tweaking on behalf of the fifth freedom. it supports and clarifies the fourth freedom, the only tweak would be if the four freedoms were officially updated (this is not expected to ever happen) that the next version of the gpl might list all five. since this will probably never be made official by the fsf, the gpl doesnt need to change.
  
  so it becomes as much of a principle as a freedom. if you read the article "four more freedoms" about four pillars to support the four freedoms, youd know that im okay with that.
  
  "So# What's their crime here again there?"
  
  i believe they are misleading their supporters, to degree that is worth calling out.
  
  "Also, please be specific about at least SOME (or ANY) lie from the FSF. Otherwise, it's very difficult to take this seriously."
  
  im not concerned about sceptics taking this seriously. its going to take far more than an article or a comment to convince people, it would be as impossible as writing the above article in a single paragraph. also i mentioned one or two things that ought to count as a reply to your question, but those didnt impress you, so i doubt a third try would either.
  
  "I'll tell you why: every party on every conflict on every place in the entire human history has someone saying that their opposition are all liars."
  
  the fsf is not the opposition. they are intended to be on the same side. they are historically on the same side. they are allegedly fighting the same fight. this much ought to be clear from the article.
  
  "It's so much like that, that today "they're wrong" may be a much more strong concept than "they're liars"."
  
  unless they are being incredibly dishonest and misleading people, yes. but i wrote the article to make a point, not to convince people that it is indisputable. something of this nature will generally take a series of articles to accomplish. and as the article here already says-- techrights will help people find the truth. that implies that it will take more articles. i think it will too.
  
  asking a prediction to come with proof is odd anyway. this article essentially makes a prediction-- if it came with proof, it would probably be a review or report.
  
  "That said, yeah, we need a million more Free Software organizations, and stop relying on Papa Stallman as some kind of good intentions encarnation in the software field"
  
  it would be better if more people filled that role, not just one person, considering how vulnerable just one person has proven to be.

• Canta

  2019-12-14 16:23:24

  Thanks for the answer. I'm satisfied by it, as it clarifies several things I was doubtful about how to understand.
  
  > not sure the licenses need tweaking on behalf of the fifth freedom. it supports and clarifies the fourth freedom, the only tweak would be if the four freedoms were officially updated (this is not expected to ever happen) that the next version of the gpl might list all five. since this will probably never be made official by the fsf, the gpl doesnt need to change. > > so it becomes as much of a principle as a freedom. if you read the article “four more freedoms” about four pillars to support the four freedoms, youd know that im okay with that.
  
  I've followed your comment and read that other article as well. And with all this, and the new article from Jagadees, I believe the right way to answer my observations is by another whole article, as I have many things to say. I'll do that later. However, I yet feel the need to also clarify on my previous reading. TL;DR: "ok, but please be careful on what you're doing, as this smells like gasoline and there's a lot of heat lately everywhere."
  
  > i believe they are misleading their supporters, to degree that is worth calling out. > (...) > im not concerned about sceptics taking this seriously. its going to take far more than an article or a comment to convince people, it would be as impossible as writing the above article in a single paragraph. also i mentioned one or two things that ought to count as a reply to your question, but those didnt impress you, so i doubt a third try would either. > (...) > the fsf is not the opposition. they are intended to be on the same side. they are historically on the same side. they are allegedly fighting the same fight. this much ought to be clear from the article.
  
  But you mostly say "they're not the same as before" while also criticize they "alledged" conservatism as some kind of elaborate lie. In "four freedoms" you also cite some kind of stagnation, not just in the FSF but in non-profits in general. It's kinda contradictory, as there's a much simpler explanation: they're just being conservatives. They're "not as before" because there was a time when they were a vanguard: but one that did the same things they keep on doing from decades, and thus, eventually, not a vanguard anymore. "Constant revolution" is NOT their motto. They do what they do, and that's it. Times change, the enemy adapts, and so the FSF walks towards obsolescence. They may actually don't know what to do anymore. And so they change (its polarity, its value, its centrality, or whatever you wanna call it) by just doing always the same thing.
  
  And in that case, all the rest of your points stand strong, but without calling them liars.
  
  For the record: I myself have asked publicly and face to face to Stallman last time he came to Argentina, about some thing I've found problematic about the FSF. I didn't liked they waited for Firefox OS and Ubuntu Phone to die before they put "we need a free softare OS for mobile devices" on their top ten list of priorities. I wanted an explanation on why they took so long, and why they said nothing about those initiatives (or any other) as if it wasn't their issue. I don't want an android fork, but a GNU one, or even something entirely different. And I've found his response to be lacking at best: he told me, tired and frustrated, that we should use Replicant, and that if we can we should not use mobile phones at all. In the same convention, he was happy to say that he do use mobile phones, but from his friends, as then the powers that be can't know it's him using the phone. But that's not being anonymous, but using his friend's identity to do stuff, which is deeply troubling and not funny at all. And all that was told to me in a discourse that pretended to preach software ethics from a software ethics leader: I expected much more. Yet, it's a long way from pointing out problems in his logic to call him a liar, which I don't believe he is. There was, however, people calling him a liar.
  
  You also say (to the FSF) that the way to prove you wrong is "show me results!". But when I asked you for a concrete way to implement a fifth freedom (as a directly related example of your whole point) other than by changing GPL (again, as a direct example of something the FSF actually did about it), your answer was much more vague than "results". I'm not trying to say that you have the same responsabilities than the FSF: that would be totally unfair to you, and actually kinda bananas. But there IS a point there, that you seem to conveniently omit with your "show me results", and is this: "come on dude, it's just not that simple". The FSF had LOTS of results over its history. And lots of fails too.
  
  You call for some evidence: people leaving, and an official narrative that is hard to believe. I recongnize those are no minor issues at all, but also hardly worthy of a "liars!" accusation.
  
  So it feels dishonest to call them liars on that. Not dishonest as in "I'm trying to steal something by using lies", but more like "I know this I'm saying is biased, but I don't give a damn, screw this people if they don't wanna move their asses the way I want them to do it". And "screw this people" is the very beginning of any opposition.
  
  I vindicate both bias and opposition, as I believe they're legit human traits. I'm not trying to call for some moral here. What I'm trying to point out, from a political view, is something like this: "be careful on who you're trying to wage war with". And I say that because on the other side there's corporate power, and they rarely fragmentate themselves when fighting against someone. They win almost every fight they fight, and if not now then in the long run. And for us is very difficult to build power. So I doubt the "liars" tone is the right tool for the task at hand, and I believe Stallman also feels this way: I believe he preferred a quick resignation rather than hurt the institutions he was part of with an internal war, even if he had supporters and legit claims and whatsoever.
  
  Perhaps your (our) role as non-Stallmans may very well be to apply pressure on institutions like the FSF for them to adequate to the changing times. That's cool. But I have my doubts about the how, and frankly I know very well I don't want another internal war in this times of crisis.
  
  > it would be better if more people filled that role, not just one person, considering how vulnerable just one person has proven to be.
  
  I believe that what we're looking at is the entrance of software to the main political arena, as happened before with race, enviroment, or gender. Those spaces also had, and still have, their huge internal struggles. But eventually they managed to grow, despite their internal differences, to become a first citizen in wordwide politics. I believe we should learn from those experiences, and I wonder how to incentivate and articulate an heterogeneous grow of very different organizations which, at the end of the day, is able to act as a front. I believe we should embrace difference. And I believe that is NOT possible under the umbrella of a single organization, such as the FSF. Yet, I also believe we should not try to hurt the FSF, even when we may need to take distance from them.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2019-12-15 06:04:44

  figosdev sent the reply:
  
  

  i think your points are very reasonable. i still have to disagree somewhat, because i dont think conservatism can explain quite everything the fsf has done or failed to do at this point.
  
  letting stallman go wasnt conservative, it was a huge mistake-- especially letting him leave the board. if he insists, they have no way to force him, though in light of all other things im not satisifed with the official narrative. ill get back to that theme.
  
  the reason it is necessary to address the honesty of the fsf is that they continue to dismiss problems, not just fail to recognise them. they continue to brand things as acceptable which most certainly or not. thats a use of their authority, and if the legitimacy of that use can be called into question, it becomes very important-- not just "business as usual."
  
  the biggest example (not the only one i can think of) is that you have a 2 billion dollar company that has created unprecedented havoc for free software for 5 years-- half a decade of regression, which is loudly protested by multiple groups of people who struggle all the time to fix it.
  
  you have groups like debian, which the fsf has long relied on (what distro is on those bootable fsf cards they still sell? as a former member, i used to own one) which are becoming less community-based (the trappings of community input still exist) but there is no question that they continue to cede increasingly to corporate input.
  
  youve got github taking over far too much of the ecosystem, and the "old" fsf would have already said thats a problem-- yet now that its a full-on crisis they wont talk about it.
  
  if the fsf were just regressing, and not simply being as conservative as usual, that would be one thing. but i think theyre actually becoming more conservative, not like the "old" fsf. you imply this is perception, i wouldnt be too sure.
  
  throw in the fact that the 2 billion dollar company is now owned by ibm, the company that invented the tactics microsoft has spent 20 years using to attack free software.
  
  throw in the fact that after stallman resigned, red hat threw in their 2c about what sort of person ought to replace stallman, within a week or two.
  
  throw in the fact that right before the stallman thing happened, someone from ibm (someone we all should feel like we can trust because of his contributions, someone i no longer trust-- someone i actually recommended for the same position years earlier in a book addressed to the free software movement!) which is not only a major sponsor with a direct line about who should replace stallman, but are also the owners of the software that i think is designed to destroy posix.
  
  ok, blah blah blah, weve heard all this before, right?
  
  throw in the large anonymous donation the fsf got, and the comments people from the fsf made about how they didnt "have to worry" for a while, because that donation was at least one or two years of donations worth of money. (as i recall, at least.)
  
  that was right before the largely dishonest scandal with rms, which the fsf very conservatively decided to say nothing about. i know they were advised, but the result is very plainly an fsf that is far more conservative than ever.
  
  so i dont agree theyre just being conservative-- theyre becoming increasingly so.
  
  its not isolated, as this is happening almost everywhere in the free software ecosystem that counts.
  
  there are large anonymous donations invovled, whether they ever prove relevant or not.
  
  and there are some very significant scandals going on at the fsfe, which are so bad that the fsf wont defend their first sister organisation.
  
  the leader is gone, half the board is gone, theres money we cant trace to its source (thats fine, if the whole organisation doesnt turn upside down afterwards) and things are getting worse, not merely stagnating-- and on top of that, people in authoritative positions there are saying things to me directly that i consider inherently dishonest, not only dismissive.
  
  now, what im saying to people as a result is "dont be so quick to trust the fsf." and i suppose if i were the only one, that would be one thing. if i didnt know other people who were saying the same, people i trust, including former members like myself-- people who seriously recommended i join the fsf board (yeah, no, but thats very flattering of course) a few weeks or couple months ago, when i was being FAR more charitable to the fsf... a bit like you are being now.
  
  i suppose that would be one thing.
  
  but it isnt one thing. its two things, its three things, its four things, eventually it becomes a long list of special pleading that gets the fsf off the hook no matter what.
  
  and i think its time to stop doing that, and start demanding real answers instead.
  
  so not long ago, i was where you seem to be now with this. i can hardly fault you.
  
  but when you look at all of the different problems and all of the interesting details, it actually becomes increasingly suspicious.
  
  its too early to ask for proof-- we are still looking for it. but i cant offer you proof of why people should stop having so much faith and start helping us look for clues, its too early for that.
  
  its really not too early to talk about trust though. maybe five years ago was too early, but its getting ridiculous.
  
  thats what i feel my article seems to fail to get across to you, but youre obviously going to some trouble to be fair and obviously paying attention, and you have my gratitude for that.
  
  for me, its gone a little bit past the point you describe as a reflection on the present.
  
  and i think the fsf is falling a bit behind as well. for us to walk away and move forward, we need to be able to say that the fsf is too dismissive, because they have stopped ignoring us and started to accuse us of imagining things.
  
  theres a lot of reasons to take a second look at the fsf right now, that dont require a very vivid imagination-- but if i were acting as their p.r. firm, i would tell them to play that one up. "these silly kids, they dont know what theyre talking about."
  
  i used to give money to these people, and stuff like this is why i no longer do. we didnt turn on them-- what im saying is no less than this: the fsf turned on us.
  
  im angry, and done playing the ever-faithful diddled choir boy in this cathedral.
  
  as for rms, if i didnt make it perfectly clear that i dont put the blame on him for this, i did assume at one point that it might help if he gained a successor in a timely manner (wouldnt it anyway?)
  
  this isnt about him, this is more about who did what to rms. but its about a lot of other things-- the list is growing, and with it, i grow increasingly suspicious. i appreciate if youll need at least more time or bigger reasons to feel as i do, but i cant help wonder what it would take.
  
  "more proof" is a reasonable answer. but what im really telling people to do is start paying more attention. thats what i recommend at least.
  
  

• Canta

  2019-12-15 17:21:30

  Well... after reading this, I can no longer be so contemplative with the FSF. The things you say are so very deeply troubling that I'm frankly scared and disoriented about what to think or do now. Gonna take some days to clear my mind and put it to words. But I feel as sad now as the day I read about the RMS resignation.
  
  However, about your article, please know this: I didn't had all the details you mention here. You kinda wrote it as if it were all common knowledge. We're all Techrights readers here, and so we share some degree of common sense: but we read just so much, and just when we find the time for it. We just don't have all the data.
  
  I read all Free Software articles with the same lenses as any other local or international political article in any newspaper or selected media; I rarely take them as technical (as in "software", or "programming", or "computing") issues. And so I compare all Free Software situations with my understanding of current and historical political dynamics, as they're the same things from my point of view. What I've put in question in my previous comments were more related to politics in general than the FSF in particular. And, in my activist experience, and looking at the current state of Latin America affairs, I know for a fact that internal struggle is devastating, so I put some effort in trying to diminish it: is my way of "doing something about it" with what I have.
  
  So, I believe I should thank you, as I also hate playing devil's advocate in order to stop an internal fight. Yet, I REALLY wish there were a better alternative than bashing the FSF, or any other former Free Software champion for that matter. Shit is just so depressing...