The Free Software Force is calling for support
The first Free Software Force announcement is online, both in
English and Spanish:
Free Software Force
https://fsforce.noblogs.org/
--
Ignacio Agulló · name at domain
RMS did nothing wrong.
https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/index.html
> The first Free Software Force announcement is online
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!
Some posts I've been pointed to via the ##rms group on Freenode, an IRC group supporting RMS.
http://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/
@Fenderbassist
There is much more I didn't thought there would be more support but here it is.
https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
https://medium.com/@whoisylvia/richard-stallman-has-been-vilified-by-those-who-dont-know-him-a3907b25b4c7
https://jorgemorais.gitlab.io/justice-for-rms/
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2019-09/msg00259.html
https://blog.frantovo.cz/c/377/
https://fsforce.noblogs.org/
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/free-software-force-calling-support
https://www.muylinux.com/2019/09/27/richard-stallman-gnu-free-software-force/
https://gnu.support/richard-stallman/Ludovic-Court%C3%A8s-Guix-is-accusing-Stallman-of-Thoughtcrime-on-his-own-domain-GNU-org.html
https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman/
https://neritam.wordpress.com/2019/10/11/no-justification-for-stallmans-resignation/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGF17TbbBcE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UbQ1kc1vQU
https://watchkin.com/y/7UbQ1kc1vQU
https://medium.com/@gbatmarx/dear-selam-ddfb55f46fed?source=---------1------------------
https://maslinux.es/batalla-en-la-fsf-cuaderno-de-bitacora-i/
http://techrights.org/2019/10/18/gnu-is-rms/
https://medium.com/@tossing. bark/remove-stallman-you-say-and-everyone-else-horrible-in-tech-fd4b1446b0a1
Glad to see the support.
This article is a very thorough summary of the situation and in general a good link to give to anyone who wants to understand it:
https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
However, it links prominently to this petition:
https://www.change.org/p/journalists-to-stop-the-persecution-of-stallman-and-apologize-publicly
I won't sign that petition because it asks people not to join or support the FSF (US). Stallman has specifically asked people who support him to continue their membership and support of the FSF. If folks are launching petitions in support of Stallman, they ought to respect his requests on such matters.
Even if the bit asking people to stop giving money and support to FSF was changed to ask people not to give money to SF Conservancy, who enthusiastically joined in the witch hunt with a misleading blog post of their own, I would question the wisdom of this. Withdrawing from these organizations only hands over total, unchallenged control of them to the Witchfinders General. I think it's better strategy to make sure all software freedom and open source organizations have at least a few people involved who are willing to respectfully but firmly challenge the witchfinding mania, and the manipulative narcissists who whip it up so they can take control of organizations they did sod all to help build.
On 28/11/19 18:04, wrote:
> This article is a very thorough summary of the situation and in
> general a good link to give to anyone who wants to understand it:
> https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
Excellent exposition.
The amount of falsehood publicized against Stallman cannot be
explained by incompetency alone. There is no doubt that there was a
synchronized campaign plotted against Stallman. Some of the computer
press sided with this campaign, even enthusiastically. ZDNet, you have
lost all the credibility I ever granted you.
--
Ignacio Agulló · name at domain
Thanks. That is interesting reading.
About the petition, it reads:
Low grade journalists and an internet mob used lies to attack RMS. He was forced to resign from the FSF and his position at the MIT.
The in-depth review of the facts, in chronological order, can now be found in an easier to read format here.
If you disagree with this injustice, sign this petition to show that: You wont purchase from brands that advertise on the news papers involved, you will no longer donate to the FSF(United States) but to other free software organizations instead and that you will avoid collaborating with MIT researchers.
This may be well-intended but it is flawed since it would require possible signatories to read the "news papers involved" in full. That is hardly feasible for (m)any person(s).
It is also unclear what the "injustice" comprise exactly. Since the petition includes a call to not donate to FSF, it appears that it was FSF who "forced [RMS] to resign" and hence should be sanctioned.
Do we know if RMS was "forced to resign" (his presidency of) FSF *BY* FSF?
(The same questions could be raised regarding MIT)
GNUbahn:
> Do we know if RMS was "forced to resign" (his presidency of) FSF *BY* FSF?
I've seen no evidence of that as yet. It's not unusual in these sorts of cases for a person to come under increasing pressure to fall on their sword and resign, to avoid the scandal of the institution having to fire them as part of a defensive PR strategy. It's possible Stallman may have been pressured to resign from the FSF in this way. It's equally possible that he may have observed the controversy being whipped up by those willfully misinterpreting his statements, and simply decided himself that it was better for the FSF to avoid being drawn into that controversy, and/or that it was better for his reputation to resign rather than being stood down. At this point, we don't know.
Since there seems to be no evidence we can't allow ourselves to conclude that he was forced *BY* FSF and hence not that FSF should be sanctioned.
On top of the 'scan all the news papers involved" flaw, this is one more reason not to sign the petition.
On 29/11/19 16:29, wrote:
> Since there seems to be no evidence we can't allow ourselves to
> conclude that he was forced *BY* FSF and hence not that FSF should be
> sanctioned.
I think you are naive. Experience has taught me otherwise:
-The quitter reckons comitting a mistake: exit happens because of regret.
-The quitter doesn't reckon comitting a mistake: exit happens because of
pressure, usually by threatening and expulsion.
I have no doubt whatsoever that we are on the second scenario, and
I blame the FSF(oundation) for it.
--
Ignacio Agulló · name at domain
I think you are naive
I usually take such an expression as a compliment but in this case it might not qualify for one since you seem to ignore the facts:
Since there seems to be no evidence we can't allow ourselves to conclude that he was forced *BY* FSF and hence not that FSF should be sanctioned.
Experience has taught me that a third possible scenario could be
- The quitter doesn't reckon his or her given action as a mistake in itself, but reckon that the particular action may be interpreted and treated in ways that might damage the organisation which the quitter was working for, and therefore considers a resignation as a (perhaps the best) means to avoid (further) damage to that organisation.
Since there seems to be no *evidence* we can't allow ourselves to *conclude* that he was forced *BY* FSF and hence not that FSF should be sanctioned.
Someone on the Internet engaging in intelligent speculation that fits the facts, common sense, and parsimoniousness? And, what's more, going so far as to clearly acknowledge a lack of data, rather than confidently claiming inside knowledge or "obvious" conspiracies? What is the world coming to??