rms addressed the free software community and the only thing he thinks he did wrong was defending Minsky.

No word about things he said, or the talks about how he dealt with FSF employees or anything else.

It's like he believes that people are angry for just that Minsky incident.

Also, I'm not in the mood to get into a discussion about if he's right or wrong, or accusations right or wrong.

It is that the whole thing feels... empty.

Now, I don't want to sound biased or anything, but the board message also feels empty: fsf.org/news/statement-of-fsf-

A few things give me the wrong impression of it all, specially the second paragraph.

For example "We decided to bring RMS back because we missed his wisdom". One thing is realize that you lack some sort of wisdom, another is "miss". It feels the response is purely emotional and not rational.

Another point: "His historical, legal and technical acumen on free software is unrivaled." As a tech leader/senior dev, my mission is to spread knowledge. If you have a senior/lead that keeps knowledge to themselves (or, worse, doesn't instill curiosity on searching for an answer), then, IMHO, they failed as senior/lead.

Honestly, I stopped reading at that point, 'cause, again, it feels like it was purely emotional decision and not based on technical things.


Also: "We recognize the need to attract a new generation of activists for software freedom and to grow the movement."

And then, instead of bringing new people, to bring new ideas, you bring old people back (no matter how large their knowledge of free software is). The FSF, and the free software movement as a whole needs new brains to think new things, otherwise it won't get the same position it was in the late 2000s.

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!