Igalia's statement on RMS and the FSF.

> "We at Igalia are dismayed that Richard Stallman is back in a leadership position at the Free Software Foundation, after being forced to resign 18 months ago due to a pattern of sexist behavior. After all of the efforts of the community and FSF staff to build an inclusive movement for software freedom, we are baffled that the electors of the board chose to reinstate Stallman without any explanation, much less an apology or remediation for past behavior. [...]"

> forced to resign due to a pattern of sexist behaviour

Is that what that MIT e-mail-based slander directed at RMS was? So convenient to leave out the fabricated twig that broke the camel's back, and circle around to the fabricated prudity in fashion.

@wyatwerp I am having a hard time understanding your question and the sentence after it. They seem to contain lots of hidden assumptions I don't understand, and indirect accusations towards us which I certainly do not appreciate.

What is the "MIT e-mail-based slander" you refer to, what is the "fabricated twig that broke the camel's back" you think was left out, and what is the "fabricated prudity in fashion"? Also why do you think that we at Igalia would find any of this convenient at all? I think our statement is pretty direct and not "circling around" anything, unlike your question and statement.

I really hope I am misunderstanding your unfriendly tone, please tell me so if I do.

If it helps, here are some links with more information about RMS's sexist behaviour, which is an issue in free software for a very long time.


@ioa i apologise for the tone, especially towards people hearteningly demonstrating making money while being free-software-friendly, but it is logical.

There is no sequence of events in which RMS resigned due to long-standing opinions against his behaviour. He resigned unwillingly due to distortion of his e-mail defending Minsky. Not acknowledging the "debt" his detractors owe to the distorters is circling around the issue.

Imputing handpicked reasons to others action is cheap.
@ioa further, discomfiture of people with his behaviour is always said to be long-standing and not new. Why wasn't it voiced decades ago, or parallel movements built decades ago? Why voice them now, hiding the MIT e-mail distortions while at it? What is it if not fabricated prudity?

If he is so abhorrent (Nadine Strossman, Leah Rowe, etc. say he is not, but that doesn't count, eh?), what is the reason to covet the organizations he built, that are proof that can lead and inspire.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Functional Café

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!