
Stallman Still Heading the GNU Project - rurban
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-09/msg00008.html
======
soulofmischief
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth how quickly people will let one bad cluster
of comments negate a man's entire life work. I have already outlined my
opinions on this matter elsewhere but I still hope this incident doesn't ruin
RMS.

~~~
HaloZero
From what I've understood, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back
with Stallman. He's harassed and bothered dozens of women in and outside of
MIT.

~~~
ericsoderstrom
I keep seeing this response, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. If Stallman's
past behavior was unacceptable, then he should have been fired for _that_.

The fact is, the reporting around the event that actually _did_ get him fired
was beyond awful and disingenuous. By throwing up your hands and saying "yeah
maybe those articles _were_ a crock of lies, but that's fine because he
actually did do some shitty stuff before too" you're contributing to an
environment in which it's that much harder to distinguish honest reporting
from fabricated character assassination.

I think this [0] comment from Reddit does a good job refuting the "straw that
broke the camel's back" argument:

"""

Amazing how much damage dishonest media coverage can do, even though it's both
trivial to prove their misquotes false and we now have an witness further
supporting Stallman's original argument. Summary of events:

In a recently unsealed deposition a woman testified that, at the age of 17,
Epstein told her to have sex with Marvin Minsky. Minsky was a co-founder of
the MIT Media Lab and pioneer in A.I. who died in 2016. Stallman argued on a
mailing list (in response to a statement from a protest organizer accusing
Minsky of sexual assault) that, while he condemned Epstein, Minsky likely did
not know she was being coerced:

> We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she
> presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced
> by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from
> most of his associates.

Someone wrote a Medium blogpost called "Remove Richard Stallman" quoting the
argument. Media outlets like Vice and The Daily Beast then lied and misquoted
Stallman as saying that the woman was "entirely willing" (rather than
pretending to be) and as "defending Epstein". Note the deposition doesn't say
she had sex with Minsky, only that Epstein told her to do so. Since then
physicist Greg Benford, who was present at the time, has stated that she
propositioned Minsky and he turned her down:

> I know; I was there. Minsky turned her down. Told me about it. She saw us
> talking and didn’t approach me.

This seems like a complete validation of the distinction Stallman was making.
If what Minsky knew doesn't matter, if there's no difference between "Minsky
sexually assaulted a woman" and "Epstein told a 17-year-old to have sex with
Minsky without his knowledge or consent", then why did he turn her down? We're
supposed to consider a dead man a rapist for sex he didn't have because of
something Epstein did without his knowledge, possibly even in a failed attempt
to create blackmail material against him?

Despite this, Stallman has now been pressured to resign not just from MIT but
from the Free Software Foundation that he founded. Despite (and sometimes
because of) his eccentricities, I think Stallman was a very valuable voice in
free-software, particularly as someone whose dedication to it as an ideal
helped counterbalance corporate influence and the like. But if some
journalists decide he should be out and are willing to tell lies about it,
then apparently that's enough for him to be pushed out.

"""

[https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/d59efr/computer...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/d59efr/computer_scientist_richard_stallman_resigns_from/f0lo5c8/?st=k11qs2rm&sh=44869ce8)

~~~
tutfbhuf
> I keep seeing this response, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. If
> Stallman's past behavior was unacceptable, then he should have been fired
> for that.

Yes, it doesn't make a lot of sense that his previous unacceptable behavior
has been tolerated. Pressure on him, should have been so much earlier.

~~~
Aqua
How come none of that came into light before the leak of his emails? This is
quite curious, don't you think? I've read the emails and from the looks of it
he just says that there's not enough evidence to condemn someone for their
alleged misconduct. I'm very skeptical about all these "revelations", this
entire thing appears to be media manipulation. I recommend the book "Trust me,
I'm lying", it's eye-opening.

~~~
tutfbhuf
> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex
> between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. - RMS Quote
> [https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-
> oct.html#14_September...](https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-
> oct.html#14_September_2019_\(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong\))

You don't have to trust the media. RMS himself confirms that he was wrong in
the past, at least regarding child abuse.

~~~
dependenttypes
You are assuming that Aqua implies that Stallman publishing his personal
opinions in his blog was the issue. While this might be true, for me at least
the real revelations were posts like
[https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1173981287037751297](https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1173981287037751297)
and
[https://twitter.com/jilliancyork/status/1173898047878598656](https://twitter.com/jilliancyork/status/1173898047878598656)
\- which constitute actual unacceptable behaviour but can't easily be
verified.

~~~
craigsmansion
I'm sorry, but:

"I hosted rms many years ago in the 90’s, what was supposed to be hosting your
hero for a ~3 day thing became a ~2 month nightmare."

Did Miguel ask him to leave? Or did he just sit around passive-aggressively
for _3_ whole months? Also, rms called Miguel "a traitor to the Free Software
community" at some point, and now with the whole MIT business, he gets in with
the twitter defamation league spouting off his grievances. That's pretty much
beyond cowardly and into despicable territory.

Jillian's story is pretty much the entire problem in a nutshell:

"an older female colleague _recommended at a whisper_ that I lock myself in my
office."

"She later _told me_ it was because he gets touchy"

"Over the years, _I heard_ all sorts of things of this nature, and warned
women who might not be in the know"

Maybe this older female colleague was _told_ the same things at some point?
Why is every single allegation hearsay from twitter?

"instructing them on how to properly make tea"

Yes, rms can be very particular about minor things. If you did not know even
this, why are you writing about "things about rms others should know"?

Also, again EFF connections. Do they even want to pretend to be useful
anymore, outside of cluelessly abusing people on twitter for kicks?

~~~
dependenttypes
You are sorry about what? I myself said that these stories can't easily be
verified. I only suggested an alternative understanding of Aqua's post to
tutfbhuf

~~~
craigsmansion
Sorry about not finding myself in agreement over what would be a "real
revelation", but I might have misunderstood. My apologies.

------
drevil-v2
Good for him. In this day and age I support any fightback against
deplatforming. I hate that it has come down to this, where you have to take a
stand just on principles. I don't know if Stallman is really a "creepy old
man" who hits on his female co-workers but any chance of a fair enquiry in an
appropriate manner is near zero.

The mass hysteria and instant justice demands of the twitter outrage mob has
killed nuance or shades of grey from public discourse. I really really hate
that anything in the center is taboo. I lay the blame squarely on the far-left
for this state of affairs. They started this war and this trend. God knows
where it will end.

~~~
narag
_Good for him. In this day and age I support any fightback against
deplatforming._

Maybe it's just me but these news surprise me most because, of all people,
Stallman is a pioneer of some kinds of activism that these people also
practices, like nitpicking about language or the idea of purity.

~~~
zajio1am
It is a big difference between just making moral claims (even about language
and purity), expressing them and conforming to them perself on one side, and
calling for outrage mob and deplatforming on the other side.

The first one is responsible moral position, the second one is witch hunt.

------
thinkingemote
If I can be forgiven for an interesting meta observation, I think the time of
day and the tone of some comments makes a big difference depending on the
topic.

For example Snowdon topics posted during the European morning and then later
on American users share their thoughts and comments. And then later on as
Silicon Valley comes online.

same with RMS and other cultural issues, when just looking at the comments
it's clear that there's differences in opinion due to different cultures.

I have not really observed these differences in pure tech stories though.

~~~
Throw_Away_9472
What are these cultural differences in the Stallman issue? European users are
more supportive of him I guess, right?

------
earenndil
He would do well to acknowledge the controversy surrounding his recent exits--
the people saying his resignations were a leap forward for tech. To ignore
them lends them credence.

~~~
t0astbread
He did post an apology on his personal website but it wasn't particularly
strong I guess

~~~
sprash
Why should anyone apologize for being a victim of a coordinated character
assasination campaign?

~~~
KaiserPro
why should anyone apologise for _anything_?

------
ourlordcaffeine
The one thing I hope for in this whole situation is that the F/OSS movement
keeps going, and the quality of code and diversity of free software stays
high, because I'm pretty sure there are individuals and companies who want
F/OSS to end, and may see this as an opportunity to try to stoke further
controversy and infighting to splinter and destroy the movement.

------
bscphil
I think everyone should be able to agree that the situation, as it stands, is
pretty unfortunate. Stallman has pretty clearly lost (or never had) the trust
of many members of the community, and it seems unlikely that he will be an
effective leader and public face for GNU, as a result.

I don't think anyone reasonable is trying to prevent him from airing his
personal opinions (contra what many people are claiming in this thread), and
there are indeed many people who are open to listening to those opinions --
but whether you think he ought to leave GNU or not, it's unfortunate that he
triggers such strong negative reactions from many people. Some pretty
responsible and knowledgeable people such as the EFF's head of cybersecurity
have described him as a "creep". [1]

While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible
discourse that removing him from his positions, as two organizations have
done, was the right decision[3], I also believe that that's not really
relevant for this particular thread. He founded GNU. He runs GNU. He probably
can't be forced by anyone to leave GNU. None of that changes the fact that he
will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/evacide/status/1172287971220848640](https://twitter.com/evacide/status/1172287971220848640)

[2] He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent
consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.

[3] Even putting aside the forum in which he made these comments, and the
things he has said and done at other times.

~~~
nieksand
Can you provide an actual link for [2]? It's a very serious allegation.

~~~
bscphil
Yes. This article[1], so far as I can tell, contains the full nuance of the
story. He claimed (or very strongly insinuated) that if a minor sex
trafficking victim presented herself as "entirely willing", then a man who had
sex with her is not guilty of sexual assault. I believe that's what I said in
my comment.

[1]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer-
scientist-richard-stallman-resigns-mit-after-comments-about-epstein-scandal/)

~~~
zajio1am
Which is AFAIK true in my jurisdiction. While he could be prosecuted for child
abuse (if the victim is minor), but not for sexual assault or rape, as that
requires mens rea, which is not here if the victim presented herself as
'entirely willing'.

~~~
bscphil
Maybe. In many US states it's a strict liability crime.

But you'll notice that nothing about my point hinges on whether RMS was right
or wrong. My claim was about what RMS said (which you seem to grant), not
about whether he was correct in saying it.

~~~
zajio1am
If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal argument.

There are at least three levels of analysis - semantic (which are proper words
describing the act), descriptive legal (whether the commited act is crime) and
normative legal (whether the commited act should be crime).

Note that the law does not prescribe language (if the law defines some crime
named XYZ mean it overrides common language meaning of XYZ). It is the other
way - criminal law defines which classes of acts are crimes and then uses
common language names for them (which may or may not fits perfectly).

Stallman first made semantic algument about 'sexual assault' and later later
did semantic or perhaps normative legal argument about rape definition.

(With second reading, the rape definition comment was also clearly semantic.)

~~~
bscphil
> If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal
> argument.

I agree! Stallman's claim was (at least mostly) semantic. Specifically, it
hinges on the claim that sexual assault _means_ something that involves
coercion on the part of the assaulter. He adds to this a factual argument that
(assuming Minsky did have sex with her), he was probably unaware of the fact
that she did not consent. Therefore (he concludes), Minsky probably did not
commit sexual assault.

But ... you'll notice that this is exactly what I've been saying throughout
this thread. RMS is defending Minsky against the charge of sexual assault by
saying that she probably pretended to consent (which means he probably didn't
physically force her to have sex).

Maybe you want to defend this claim. I'm not here to argue for or against it.
The simple statement that I made in the OP was that this is what Stallman
said, and the rest of the thread has basically been trolls claiming he didn't
say it with no evidence.

~~~
zajio1am
You are using phrases 'commit sexual assault' and 'guilty of sexual assault',
which in my reading implicates legal level of analysis. Stallman does not use
these phrases, and plain reading of his mail clearly expresses semantic
argument.

Therefore, your original post could be read as misinterpretation of Stallman
semantic argument as legal argument.

Also your original claim "While I believe that what he said[2] is so far
beyond the pale of responsible discourse that removing him from his positions"
would IMHO make more sense when your post is read as Stallman making (wrong)
legal argument.

Everyone is entitled about per opinion on proper usage of language so it does
not make sense why a semantic argument in general or this one in particular
would be 'far beyond the pale', considering that his semantic argument makes
(IMHO) perfect sense.

~~~
bscphil
Surely any charitable reading of my comment would have to assume that I'm
responding on the same frequency as Stallman? After all, RMS himself just says

> The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some
> unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.

He doesn't spell it out for you that he's speaking about the semantics of
"assault". In quoting / responding to Stallman, there's no reason I should
have to either. I could (uncharitably) assume RMS meant the legal definition
of assault too!

I don't think most of the people who have a problem with what Stallman said
misunderstood him. I also don't think you're entitled to just use words
however you want; semantics isn't the same thing as defining words for
yourself.

Even if you really try to force that position, at best you end up with the
view that Stallman thinks someone might be misled into thinking Minsky did
something worse than he actually did, where what he actually did was have sex
with an underage sex trafficking victim, and what you were misled into
thinking he did was physically force an underage sex trafficking victim to
have sex with him. He thinks the claims against Minsky are "inflated".

But ... if the former is what Minsky did, that's a really fucked up thing to
do. It's assault, as the majority of people seem to understand it. Trying to
diminish the nature of the assault by saying that she appeared to consent
comes across _at best, even under the kindest interpretation_ , as a _really
weird_ point to make. It's _incorrect_ to say that you can't assault someone
if they appear to consent. That's what people are upset about.

As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I'm not particularly interested in
defending the wrongness of RMS's statement. (I made that point in my OP,
actually.) What I'm trying to defend (and rather bemused by the responses to)
is the claim that he actually said these things.

------
InTheArena
I know people are decrying the sudden exposure of years of actual issues
(including warnings/remedial/probation), as well as skepticism about rumors
that are floating around. None of this is new knowledge. I heard rumors about
RMS floating back at Berkeley around 1999-2003.

So let's look at the worst case possible circumstance - that a man who
repeatedly makes comments that are interpreted as pro-pedophilia and has a
history of inappropriate conduct with young (albiet legal) women might
actually act in ways that he has publicly justified.

In that circumstance, no one can say that the warning signals were not there.
That would be on all of us, and leaving him in a position of power would
continue the possibility of abuse.

For the FSF and GNU to have a future (as opposed to "open source"), they need
to evolve beyond Stallman one way or other. Associating these institutions
with Stallman going forward exposed them to the risk (worst case) of being the
catholic church at Stallman's alter. At best, they are fighting a fight that
has nothing to do with their primary mission.

------
Santosh83
Stallman has been a 'creep' for decades is all I keep hearing from people in
these threads. So why is it that all his victims from decades of his 'creepy'
behaviour do not come forward and LEGALLY take action against him? Is the USA
not one of the most empowered countries for women? If not in the USA then
where? Repeated accusations on the Internet don't count. This is just digital
version of character assassination. A lot of people seem to have hated and
resented him for _various_ reasons (something that all long-standing leaders
accumulate), and they seem to have seized on a suitable 'faux-pas' to whip up
as much frenzy as they can and do maximum possible social damage to him. And
not one will pursue credible, legal redressal.

To an outsider with no skin anywhere in this, it is just shameful how this has
played out.

~~~
einpoklum
> Stallman has been a 'creep' for decades is all I keep hearing from people in
> these threads. So why is it that all his victims from decades of his
> 'creepy' behaviour do not come forward and LEGALLY take action against him?

Forgetting Stallman for a second - This is a weak argument. There are many
reasons not to step forward with public accusations of someone; even more
reasons not to take legal action; and even more reasons if that person is
famous and has significant public credit.

Also, indeed, after a person casts the first stone at someone, others are
quick to follow - but that doesn't mean they don't have a good reason to cast
a stone; it's just an aspect of human group/mass psychology.

~~~
sooheon
How do you think we should distinguish justified and unjustified stonings, if
not by due process?

~~~
einpoklum
If you mean "due process" in the sense of criminal law - that's certainly not
it, for at least two reasons:

1\. It puts a very high bar for establishing guilt (at least in principle; in
practice it might be a toss-up), commensurate with the punishment being state
violence, which is supposed to be a rare and extreme measure not be taken
lightly (again, in practice, the US loves to convinct and jail people).

2\. A lot of deplorable behavior is legal; and some acceptable or even worthy
behavior is illegal.

------
baroffoos
What does he actually do at the gnu project? It was my understanding that RMS
doesn't program anymore.

~~~
webkike
He makes decisions about software. It’s the same position as Linus or Rossum.

~~~
canarypilot
Name some impactful decisions he has made recently. Your comment does an
immense disservice to Linus and Rossum.

~~~
rdc12
A while back he was blocking things like, a package manager for emacs (that
does exist now) and making GCC able to export an AST for external tools to
manipulate (in particular for emacs to do semantic editing of code).

In both cases since it would make it easier for closed source software to make
use of GPL software.

------
samstave
Here is the quote in question:

 __ _The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner
were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia,
bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia"
also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All
of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal
only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness._ __

 __ _Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other
people 's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid
risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure
prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and
support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public
health, compared with the situation today._ __

 __ _For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for
permission if the decedent 's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be
my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being
scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it
may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy
rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants)._ __

------
wruza
I found this comment in a similar local discussion, and it seemed to gain some
traction instantly. Idk personally if its right or wrong, tbh, but maybe it is
worth discussing in the light of recent events.

“””

It is hard to choose to which comment to reply, so I’ll leave a general
message to anyone who thinks that RMS resignation is good for a reason that
was used for it _and_ that one-sided mob rule is above all.

His comments were formally correct. You cannot beat logic. You can scream and
jump through as many hysterical hoops as you want, stigmatize the dead, but
you will not get any respect from a majority of thinking population. You will
never win this war by shutting throats. It is a war on logic. You will be
disliked on a basis of being a noisy moron. All you do now is to train more
and more people’s habit to cover real intents and reimplement them in
politically correct ways against you, as there is no more place to speak
without your picky attention. This virtual noose you invented will finally
tighten around your own neck.

~~~
rrss
The objectionable bits of his most recent comments were primarily opinion, so
I don't know what "formally correct" means.

"Even if it would have been legally rape, it shouldn't be called 'assault'
because it would just have been statutory rape, and really we should consider
whether statutory rape is morally wrong."

I don't believe there is any formal logic to prove whether it is or isn't
appropriate to call something assault.

Goodbye.

~~~
wruza
My guess is that "formally correct" here means statements are logically
connected into conclusions or potential suggestions. That's how I understood
it at least.

>I don't believe there is any formal logic to prove whether it is or isn't
appropriate to call something assault.

Iow, you believe that there is no proofs for harm of statutory rape. Why? (I
don't understand your goodbye either.)

------
domnomnom
Time to donate to gnu!

------
mongol
I thought contributions to GNU requires copyright reassignment to FSF.. in
that case, is not a weak position to lead the GNU project from, if he has no
role within FSF?

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
FSF only needs copyright so they can relicense at will. That is of little
impact to GNU.

~~~
onlydeadheroes
I guess we can soon expect them to relicense it all to free the world from the
viral nature of the GPL.

~~~
josefx
The GPL is published by the FSF, so they could just publish a GPLv4 that
declares all the code property of Alphabet Inc. and the "or later" clause
would take care of the rest.

~~~
xeeeeeeeeeeenu
They actually did something like that with GFDL, they added a special
exemption, just for Wikipedia[1].

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Compatibility_with_Creative_Commons_licensing_terms)

~~~
anoncake
That's a very different case. The point of licensing a work under the GFDL
version n or higher is that the FSF can relicense it under a different
copyleft license – like CC-BY-SA. Of course CC-BY-SA and GFDL aren't identical
but neither are different versions of the GFDL.

------
scarejunba
I don't get it. Did he just proclaim this to the world without provocation
just after lunch?

Also, Chief Gnuisance gives me all these feelings of nostalgia for my teenage
years spent learning to compile the Unichrome Linux driver to play Unreal
Tournament on a Via VT8378. All that silly nonsense about GNU's Not Unix.

I'm glad the right culture for software was set up back then. It could have
gone so many other ways.

------
bitL
Isn't RMS homeless now? I was told he lived in his MIT office; now that he is
no longer there...?

~~~
pseudalopex
He moved out around 1998.[1]

[1] [https://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html](https://stallman.org/rms-
lifestyle.html)

~~~
bitL
He might be homeless now actually:

[https://stallman.org/seeking-housing.html](https://stallman.org/seeking-
housing.html)

------
sanj
How many honorary doctorates add up to calling yourself “Dr.”?

------
buboard
Obviously

------
webkike
Frankly, it’s his code. Whatever. It just makes me want to fork his code and
make it better

~~~
floatboth
He hasn't been very involved with code for the last N years, and how many GNU
projects do you use anyway? GCC and coreutils? meh. Thankfully, LLVM has
killed GCC's dominance.

~~~
webkike
I use Emacs daily, and he is in full control of that project.

------
moonbug
I guess the abortion "joke" will be staying then.

------
cujo
Oh good. Now the community here will bend over backwards defending him again.
It's tiresome and misguided.

1\. He said controversial stuff.

2\. He's a representative of organizations that don't want him to say
controversial stuff.

3\. He got kicked around for it.

Quit defending his behavior. It's not a good look. It doesn't matter if you
think he's "technically correct" (which is highly debatable, anyway).

You're enabling bad behavior if you think this should go on without any kind
of blowback.

This is the tech version of "locker room talk". It's all good so long as
you're on the same team, right?

~~~
dexen
_> the community here will bend over backwards defending him_ _> organizations
that don't want him to say controversial stuff_

Quite a paradoxical situation: the organizations in question are no longer
fitting - neither the community, nor the leaders.

Stallman co-created and led a community. There were various organizations
established to help the community and to benefit from it. Somehow the
organizations became detached from both the community and one of the most
prominent leaders, to the point of taking a stand against both.

Here's to hoping one day the free software community's voice can reach Free
Software Foundation better than the Twitter outrage mob.

------
mikeash
Here’s what I don’t get: why are you all so concerned about what happens to
this guy? He didn’t get lynched. He’s not going to prison. He had a
comfortable life and he will continue to have a comfortable life. Why does
this asshole deserve so much of your time and energy?

~~~
rowanG077
Because of something called justice? It was really ridiculous how he was
treated while he didn't do anything wrong. Uninformed masses will still see
this guy as a bad person for years to come for no other reason that the media
is lying to them.

~~~
PaulRobinson
He has done lots wrong over many years to many people. The incident that
caused the furor was the last straw because it was tone-deaf to the context.

Nobody wishes him ill, but he has no place as a leader in the free software
movement if it is to flourish. Of course, he can participate, and as president
of GNU that might be an OK level of participation.

Do not expect us to believe he has been treated unfairly, however: he has been
treated the same way any other employee at MIT would be treated, and as the
FSF has seen fit given its organisational goals.

~~~
diffeomorphism
> He has done lots wrong over many years to many people.

[citation needed] and distraction. So what if he didn't do anything of what he
is currently accused of, I am sure he has done lots of wrong before (of which
I am going to list exactly nothing)?

> he has been treated the same way any other employee at MIT would be treated.

He has resigned to shield MIT from public pressure after lots of lies have
appeared about things he hasn't said.

------
gexla
RMS was sitting in a hot seat when public scrutiny flooded in. With bullets
whizzing past his head, he chose to post this language into the public sphere.
Bad decision. You're fired.

This is like being in a room with people who may be known to possess drugs and
then running your mouth when the cops bust in. "Maybe cocaine isn't so bad!"

Just shut up. Plead the 5th. "Talk to my lawyer, representative or whatever."
Take your right to remain silent because any stupid sh __you say can and will
be used against you.

Stay in your lane, especially as a representative of others. If you're going
to run your mouth, then at least wait until you get home and do it on your own
equipment using personal channels. And even then you still might be
representing others.

Opinions aren't cheap. They have a real cost. You should be well aware of what
those costs might be and the risks you are facing. Then go ahead and give your
opinion if you're willing to pay those costs. This is a skill everyone needs
to have, but many don't. Even if he did the calcs and decided the cost was
worth it, he still did so as a rep of an org which didn't share his values.

Gnu must be a different situation and a different culture. I assume he would
have already been forced out if it were possible. Maybe they have an air-
gapped room in the basement with a desk and a red stapler.

~~~
virgilp
> Opinions aren't cheap. They have a real cost.

I.e. "before trying to form your own opinions, make sure you can afford to".
Nice world we live in.

I don't disagree with you wrt the current state of affairs, I just find it
rather sad.

~~~
gexla
> I.e. "before trying to form your own opinions, make sure you can afford to".
> Nice world we live in.

Feature, not a bug. Having a real cost means it could also have real value.
When someone has taken a great risk to do something, then it carries more
weight to take it seriously. Don't be using fighting words unless you're ready
to fight. ;)

And we already know how to do this with our daily actions. It just seems we're
too quick to give the mouth a free pass to get loose. RMS believed in free
software and much the reason why he has fans is because he backs his words up
with his actions. He has worked his tail off over the years and he gives up
the convenience that non-free software provides. When he talks about free
software, he backs that up with a massive lifetime workload dedicated to the
subject.

Why risk that to talk about something which he has no clue about, especially
when the heat is bashing the door in. He's representing other people and he's
in a public position. The leader in the room is that guy who tells everyone to
shut up, flush your contraband down the toilet, don't talk to anyone and look
like you did nothing wrong. He failed in that, and he's not the sort of guy I
would want in my car if we got pulled over.

If he wants to try something different, may I suggest Legos? Puzzles? If you
take up explosives as a hobby, then don't be surprised if you get your leg
blown off.

Unless Dave Chappele is your press secretary, stay away from any subjects
which might be tagged as "sexual assuault" "underage girls" "age of consent".
I got anxiety just typing all that. He's nuts.

~~~
virgilp
> I got anxiety just typing all that. He's nuts.

Exactly. I'll never achieve something as big as GNU or FSF - because I get
anxiety just thinking at the personal consequences.

Because of that, allow me to be sad that the world thinks what happened to RMS
is ok. "Overdue", even, some would say.

