
Eben Moglen is no longer a friend of the free software community - JoshTriplett
https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/49370.html
======
craigsmansion
It's a sad and bewildering affair.

My most innocent interpretation of the events is that Eben got seduced by "big
picture" thinking: the thought takes hold that there are actions that are
against ones principles, but will result in so much popularity and influence
that it will be easy to undo the wrongs and still enjoy the fruits of the
shortcut to success.

History has shown this hardly ever works out (Lindows, Red Hat, ESR, Ubuntu,
etc) as intended.

It's probably too hard to transfer a fairly complex philosophy by attempting
to temporarily raise its popularity.

~~~
jordigh
Stallman calls this ruinous compromise:

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html)

------
Operyl
I dislike articles that allude to wrong doings, but when pushed for more
details on rather harsh allegations, refuse to state it. I have no way to
verify it happened, and I have to take someone’s possible lie as the one sided
truth.

EDIT: I'm referring to: "Around the same time, Eben made legal threats towards
another project with ties to FSF."

~~~
jordigh
Links are provided. For example, the SFLC trying to invalidate SFC's
trademark:

[https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2017/nov/03/sflc-legal-
action...](https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2017/nov/03/sflc-legal-action/)

This is bizarre to say the least.

~~~
carussell
I think parent poster is referring to this paragraph in particular:

> _Throughout this period, Eben disparaged FSF staff and other free software
> community members in various semi-public settings. In doing so he harmed the
> credibility of many people who have devoted significant portions of their
> lives to aiding the free software community. At Libreplanet earlier this
> year he made direct threats against an attendee - this was reported as a
> violation of the conference 's anti-harassment policy._

The reason I think this is because when I opened the article there were zero
comments here, and after reading the post, I clicked through back here to
leave a comment much the same as the one you're responding to.

A couple remarks:

I'm aware who Matthew Garrett is, and I respect him and his contributions and
his overall stance, in that way where when you see someone's name attached to
something, it automatically kicks off good feelings.

Having said that, we need a term for something like this. (One probably
exists.) Wikipedia popularized "weasel words", but this is something more
specialized. Something like "proxy words", where rather than tell someone the
things that happened, you give them this sort of non-specific, pre-digested
proxy for people to derive their judgment from. It operates on almost the same
principle as strawman arguments. It may be a good proxy, or it may not be, but
for good reason you should always favor reserving your judgment for the real
issue when presented with a proxy, rather than accepting the proxy itself.

That aside, Bruce Perens's comments in the following two LWN threads are
relevant to the overall discussion:

[https://lwn.net/Articles/738046/](https://lwn.net/Articles/738046/)

[https://lwn.net/Articles/738279/](https://lwn.net/Articles/738279/)

~~~
craigsmansion
> Having said that, we need a term for something like this.

I think it's a form if "appeal to authority," which is not always a logical
fallacy. I think it fits even if said authority will not or cannot explain
certain statements.

If say, a Bruce Schneier told me to avoid certain software or a certain
processor, but didn't give any details, I would still heed his advice and
defend that advice by appealing to his authority.

In this case, of course, it depends how much trust one would place in Matthew
Garret as an authority on moral judgements concerning Free Software matters.

~~~
carussell
People with no authority at all can (and do) do this, too. I don't think it's
an appeal to authority.

~~~
qbrass
They fact that they have no authority doesn't stop it from being an appeal to
authority, it just makes it less effective as an appeal.

------
snvzz
While there might be actually something to it, article lacks so much in detail
it's hard to do anything else with it than dismiss it whole.

When trying to denounce a person, it's not OK to be glossing over the details
to this extent.

Pretty much reads as "You can't trust Eben Moglen because I say so."

~~~
ibotty
It is Matthew J Garrett's personal blog. He was a member of the EFF and has
publicly been involved in the free software community.

~~~
cmiles74
Eben Moglen also has some very real credentials, I don't think that makes it
reasonable to take someone's claims at face value. I, too, would like some
more details on the issues. The interpretation of the GPL around ZFS is
something I believe reasonable people may disagree upon. The claim that he has
harassed and threatened people is much more serious, in my opinion, and
deserving of some real evidence.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen)

------
zantana
Eben recently had his one day conference the videos of which are here:
[https://softwarefreedom.org/events/2017/conference/video/](https://softwarefreedom.org/events/2017/conference/video/)

If you look at his closing remarks (the last video) he mentions that he
mentions being less combative as a strategy to reach more people. I suspect
this comes down to less being the same side than having different tactics.

