free software resistance

 the cost of computing freedom is eternal vigilance

### i-was-wrong-about-devault-maybe-not-like-youd-think *originally posted:* dec 2023 as recently as today: > ive had only pleasant exchanges with him and he seems like a pretty reasonable person. i mean, people thought ted bundy was charming too. im not saying devault is anything like that, just that a pleasant email exchange proves not a single thing. im totally biased here, itd be ridiculous to deny it. years ago, even before the open source initiative was founded, i was very interested in computing and id read about an "operarating system" called "linux". id learn about gnu later, because linus torvalds helped himself to an os and rebranded it to match his kernel. people would act like he made the whole thing, and the only ones who could correct him were the "neckbeard" brigade- who im not the biggest fan of these days, but they at least had the actual mission to liberate users. full disclosure, when i learned about "linux" first and "gnu" second, the latter DID seem like more of a nitpick. but thats a lot of corporate propaganda and conditioning with half-truths doing the heavy lifting. i no longer sympathise with the fsf (please do not give them money) or the gnu project (i admire efforts to further liberate bsd) but i still do not appreciate being manipulated by open source so many years ago. its not like theyve stopped doing this. open source was NEVER honest, it was always co-opting, and no one ever has or ever will do a better job of exposing this than bruce perens, the author of the open source definition and co-founder of osi. i cannot ever hope to critique the whole scam as eloquently or directly as he did in 1999, when osi was just one year into the farce of doing "open source". i fell for the rhetoric! "free software, only better!" "gnu was THEN, linux is NOW!" ### PRAGMATISM! and all of that nonsense. they brought a lot of buzzwords to the table, but each and every one was a half-truth or less. its amazing how many people fall for such shallow platitudes. i know what its like! i maintain that talking to devault was entirely pleasant. its his writing that i find appalling. recently, devault did an article about stallman that i decided was fair game- on devaults part. thats because ive been going over this stuff for years, and devault did an absolutely meticulous job citing, quoting and making his point. so i just assumed he always did that. i found evidence of a reasonable person, and i ran with it. i want to believe, i guess. my previous article was a response to the idea that its the job of users to just accept wayland whether it suits them or their needs or not. i find sentiments like that incredibly bothersome as a rule, but particularly in the name of software freedom. where free software has been getting it wrong the most these past years is in not standing for things they used to. im not here to get into a debate about pronouns, stallman should just use singular they or retire- hes not doing much good anymore with or without the support of the lgbt community. stallman hung it up in 2011, and that wouldnt be a problem if everyone wasnt following someone who basically hung it up that far back. i know hes not completely inactive, and i appreciate that hes weathering an illness at age 70 or so, but these really are details. these broader points were true before, and theyre still true when the details apply later. as for torvalds, even though today we have a lot of people who are worse, linus is really the original reason that open source has co-opted SO MUCH over the years- mozilla may have been ground zero for open source, but torvalds was its poster boy. i am SO happy to be rid of linux on my computers, whether you think its a kernel or whether you buy that linux is magically any software that it touches. hes the false messiah of computing, and though he retired from that, he still owes everyone an apology for what amounts to a swindle. open source always downplays its complicity, arrogance and interference once the deed is done, and linus is no different. devault on the other hand, has learned nothing from this, as evidenced by this article which i must cite to satisfy the license requirements, that allow me to respond more or less line-by-line without the tedious bother of a fair use defence: => https://drewdevault.com/2023/04/11/2023-04-11-The-FSF-is-dying.html thats the most technical debt ive ever seen in a url on personal blog. you really dont need to include the folder path in the filename, but hey, you do you. i do think separating the folders is reasonable. im sure he had some reason... its hilarious, because i take no issue with his conclusion at all. i agree the fsf is dying! if theres even a quibble, i would say its already dead. but the conclusion isnt the problem, its all the other hashed out, re-re-re-recycled nonsense that rides with it. if you also go back more than a decade with open source, you should also know there isnt a single item there which is news. basically, since day one open source has asked free software to shut up and let it take over, please. i mean they asked nicely, what do you want? oh, you think self-advocacy is important? whatever, dont you think autism $peaks can do a better job of advocacy than- what? they exploit the very cause they claim to stand for? they can DO that? despite falling for the same thing myself, i spent months or more being awfully confused by the gaslighting- gaslighting often has that effect! free software said it was about freedom, and open source said "YES! WE WANT THE SAME THINGS! just shut up about freedom and use these words as replacements..." ### please just shut up about what you need and let us talk for you, instead... whats so unreasonable? i get that eric raymond wanted to stop talking about "free" stuff when he pitched it to ceos, though "open source" are hardly two words that explain themselves to a non-tech person, without promoting the heck out of the idea. and people are generally very capable of understanding "free as in freedom," assuming we are talking about the same people who dont actually get confused about: "wait, you mean you got a piece of fruit that gets on the internet?" "no, its not apple as in fruit, its apple as in this brand of computer." "oh! why didnt you just say so?" "i mean, its complicated..." "no, it isnt!" only marketing people think everyone is really this stupid, because marketing people tell lies to people all day for a living. (also, if youre in marketing and this offends you- thats okay!) but beating the drum for people to step aside and just let corporate shills speak for the movement instead is not a revolutionary concept. it literally goes back decades. so lets respond to mr. devault properly: > The Free Software Foundation is one of the longest-running missions in the free software movement, effectively defining it. i think you meant literally defining it- they wrote and (sadly) are in charge of the free software definition. i only say "sadly" because theyre hardly bastions of the meaning these days, at the very most they are only bastions of the words themselves. thats still better than what open source would do- open source has failed to even stay true to its own definition (written by perens, based on debians dfsg) and im sure theyd love to get their grubby hands on the fsd so the board can "fix" it a bit. if this sounds cynical, you havent followed the history of these. > Today, almost 40 years on, the FSF is dying. i agree. if they had decided to keep standing up for users 12 years ago, the past 12 years would probably be more positive. but if devault writes an article explaining how not-for-profit organisations routinely abandon their mission and pivot from changing the world to collecting members and money for what amounts to limitless brochures about what they used to actually do, id probably agree with it. foundations are a problem, and the ones that arent, will be years from now. i only know two ways to avoid this: the first is never rely on foundations for anything. theres probably a way to do that which isnt pure (naive) idealism, though its beyond the scope of this rebuttal. there are books on this topic, such as "the revolution will not be funded". the second way is to write a self-destruct clause into any 501(c)3 or similar organisation that actually cares about the mission, so that after a certain number of years (20 seems optimistic) the org will be forced to disband at which point everything becomes incredibly treacherous, but if its really about a movement and about a grassroots cause, maybe the movement can safely shepherd everything from one org to another. maybe you should just read the book instead, because this isnt from it, this is my own thinking on the concept that may be incredibly flawed if put into practice. either way, i think the latter is what will actually happen- except a lot of what was controlled by the fsf will fall into the hands of sponsors and former sponsors. and not in a good way, at all. it should fall back into the hands of the movement itself, but the fsf is failing to protect it by existing. i dont disagree with devaults conclusion. > Their achievements are unmistakable: we must offer them our gratitude and admiration for decades of accomplishments in establishing and advancing our cause. that really is open source for you: whats yours is mine, and whats mine, could you stop bothering with it, please? > Nevertheless, the organizations behind this work are floundering. i agree with this too, both for the problems inherent in the not-for-profit sector (please note im not suggesting the for-profit sector is better, only that the lesser evil is far from adequate in perpetuity, things were significantly better for some time at least) and due to what i would say is a lack of true advocacy from the fsf for many, many years now. shallow, empty advocacy is dished out in abundance though: it isnt honest, but its much! > The Free Software Foundation must concern itself with the following ahead of all else: * Disseminating free software philosophy * Developing, publishing, and promoting copyleft licenses * Overseeing the health of the free software movement > It is failing in each of these regards, and as its core mission fails, the foundation is investing its resources into distractions. whether deliberately or incidentally, devaults setting up a long list of things that are easy to agree with, before dropping the payload of nonsense hes got up his sleeve. but its not a fancy trick hes about to do, nor more astounding than calling a two headed coin toss. here we go with the ORIGINAL open source tropes, intellectually dishonest back when osi was founded, and ready to sucker the new generation of hackers: > In its role as the thought-leaders of free software philosophy, the message of the FSF has a narrow reach. free software originally wanted to liberate users. large software companies want to control users. the compromise? design software thats impossible to effectively maintain without a hybrid paid/unpaid workforce that a large corporation can put together and manage, and then "give away" everything with a free license that does users no good because they wont get enough people to work on it, and does the competition no good because 95% of it is wholly irrelevant to what they need anyway. the rest of the bits and pieces would be available whether worked on by volunteers and academics, plus whatever sole paid developers could get permission to hack on it from work, per the actual projects goals instead of their employer- or whether theyre effectively abandoned after being taken over by so many employees that the company suddenly remembers it has its own goals rather than the needs of some reform movement, i mean are you serious? but thats what happened, i meant to reply to just "the message has"- i mean of course free software cant reasonably compete with the corporate tech press. we know which 5- when osi was founded, it was 6- corporations own 90% of the media companies, and theyre going to say mostly what the owners want them to say, or at last NOT say what the owners DONT want them to say. but wait, you expect a not-for-profit to compete with an actual, global monopoly on media companies? youre obviously high! blame the victim for not having billions of dollars, why dont you? open source does! > The organization's messaging is tone-deaf, ineffective, and myopic. i agree, but only incidentally. the problem is open source still says this when its true, and it has always said it, even when it was far less honest. also the fact that open source has always said this truly robs free software of the very accomplishments it acknowledged earlier. this is a trope at the core of open source- open source co-opts the real version of what it pretends to be, open source eats it own, open source only bestows compliments to take them away later as it pushes you out the door. if they did it to torvalds, they would do the same to every user and every new mouthpiece that stands with them. youre a pawn, youre expendable. please do what we want, then get out of here. ALSO, OUR MESSAGING IS SUPERB! it REALLY makes people sympathise with our need to take over free software projects so we can run them properly. there are perks! the perks are fleeting, we get everything back we put out there, but its real enough to convince most of you. and here is where devaults dishonesty begins to reach ceo-level but still completely unoriginal smarminess: > Hammering on about "GNU/Linux" nomenclature its so important to open source to chastise free software for defending itself from being co-opted and (in perens own words in his 1999 resignation: "overshadowed") that open source has actually created straw man versions of rms doing so- which isnt to say there arent real versions. obviously, defending yourself from corporations rewriting your history is just so petty, so UNNECESSARY, oh woe! > antagonism towards our allies in the open source movement i mean this is how gaslighting works, whether youre invading ukraine or slagging off a competing organisation: first you throw stones, then you cry "WHY ARE THEY RETURNING, I MEAN INITIATING SO MUCH AGGRESSION?!" you toss spitballs at your quarrys head for 20 minutes and when they finally react, you complain that you cant concentrate on your work because "theyre disrupting the class!" if i was ever sceptical of anti-bullying rules and laws (i think theyll work out ultimately, but ive had doubts before) its because of things just like this. MAKE NO MISTAKE, i have complained loudly and routinely about prominent bullies on the free software side. that open source has as many or more doesnt change the fact that its a problem on either side. ill do one better and say that open source has BETTER TOOLS to deal with it. only that as a caveat, they also have more options to exploit people whenever it pleases them, regardless of their own tools, and they exploit both their own and whatever else they can gain access to on their opponents side. which really shouldnt surprise you, since these are companies infamous for purchasing competitors, abusing their employees and then tossing them aside in enormous layoffs. but i wasnt making up the part about having better tools for dealing with abuse- its an advantage of open source, which can never go farther than the sponsors allow it to, but its enough to compare the two and find free software lacking. all i can say about that is, there are people still on the "free software" side who do just as much to criticise and FIGHT stallman or fsf complacency, without abandoning the cause per se for some cheap knockoff platitude like the ones open source will sell you. they are far more willing to work ALONGSIDE open source than i am, though. > The pages and pages of dense philosophical essays and poorly organized FAQs do not provide a useful entry point or reference for the community. The message cannot spread like this. drew devault: "Their achievements are unmistakable: we must offer them our gratitude and admiration for decades of accomplishments in establishing and advancing our cause." also drew devault: AND THEY DID THAT WITHOUT ANY ABILITY TO SPREAD THEIR MESSAGE AT ALL! well no, they did that despite the tech press being more sympathetic to marketers and shills. when they write free software history, theres no need to undo all their accomplishments on the very same page where you acknowledged them first. but again, thats open source for you. join them today, so they can eat their own. > maligning the audience as "useds" drew, youre a demon. free software: DONT LET DEVELOPERS CONTROL YOUR COMPUTING! open source: DONT LET A BUNCH OF NECKBEARDS INSULT YOU LIKE THAT! drew is doing all of the maligning here. > none of this aids the cause. since none of free softwares accomplishments can be attributed to any of the things free software did at the time, i can only presume that (as they said when osi was still wet behind the ears) the only thing that REALLY "aids the cause" is NOT doing free software and letting open source do everything instead. > As for copyleft, well, it's no coincidence that many people struggle with the FSF's approach. Do you, dear reader, know the difference between free software and copyleft? Many people assume that the MIT license is not free software because it's not viral. for all devaults criticism and my own apprehensions, the fsf HAS been incredibly consistent about its stance on these issues. osi had a VERY active blog once, full of pseudointellectual and quasi-philosophical debates about how many angels can fit on a clause of gpl 2 or gpl 3. given that, its also a bit dishonest to talk about the triumph of open source clarity over free softwares obfuscation, when open source was not only disingenuously nitpicking what free software essentially invented, but executives from software companies that would later sit on the board of osi would lobby torvalds to go against gpl 3 after he originally expressed a more honest pros and cons take about it. i mean youre rewriting history drew, but open source has always done that, thats one of its primary tactics. > The GPL family of licenses are essential for our movement, but few people understand its dense and esoteric language, despite the 16,000-word FAQ which supplements it. i mean, the answers are only aimed at people who know enough to ask the questions they reply to, but okay. most people wont have that many questions about the gpl, but those who do will get answers to each. its probably better than reading the cathedral and the bazaar, but to each their own i guess. "Their achievements are unmistakable..." obviously a fluke, then! i dont begrudge free softwares accomplishments, the legacy of the movement doesnt REALLY irritate me until 2011 or even 2014 or so. thats when their dwindling advocacy really started to hurt their future along with ours. which isnt to say there were never any problems earlier than that. free software absolutely has problems. as for open source, the rule is credit where credit is due, at least until we get to where open source would have done it infinitely better so why didnt they just do everything we insisted... > And hip new software isn't using copyleft: over 1 million npm packages... thats the kind of argument you should expect when you have an organisation that unironically suggests replacing most advocates of a social cause with marketing people and "leaders" from the same companies doing the SAME THINGS that the movement was standing against in the first place! nonetheless, it really should be said more often that this is a TYPICAL TRAJECTORY, in how not-for-profits get co-opted. at real risk of victim blaming here, i DO think free software had many opportunities to become aware of, and act on this threat, but instead decided "stay the course" even if said course was straight into an iceberg. it OUGHT to be said more, if only so that the next generation of free software advocates can figure out what to DO about it in the future. yes, better the present, but the present crisis has dragged on for more than a decade now, so im trying to be more realistic. i can absolutely guarantee that the current leadership will not address its biggest problems. they are helpless, and just saying so will neither secure funding nor create confidence in members. they may be failing, but they can at least make failure look more like success. personally i would prefer a more grassroots movement and LESS of a foundation, as the foundation is clearly unable to carry out its mission. no, i dont think thats hyperbole, and i dont think waiting any number of years will restore the organisation. it will only improve when people stop waiting for former leaders to lead again. and i wasted enough time defending stallman against criticisms which WERENT as dishonest as i thought at first, but THIS article is more about tired open source tropes that predate the biggest failures of the movement and the fsf. which drew devault decided to rescue from the mothballs and sail again in 2023! > And is the free software movement healthy? This one gets an emphatic 'yes!' - thanks to the open source movement and the near-equivalence between free software and open source software. yes, the "near-equivalence" between useres controlling your computing, or users helping ibm rewrite everything (using a predominantly volunteer-based force) ibm wants from the past 40 years along goals that better suit ibm, while devault literally says "---- you" to anyone who doesnt want to endorse this little scheme. how can ANYONE tell the two apart? its just like looking in a mirror. yes, there is incredible overlap between "free software" and "open source" software, PROVIDED you completely ignore the goals (for one side, freedom- for the others, "better development"- BETTER DEVELOPMENT FOR WHO?) and also ignore the dramatic difference in methods. also please, please ignore the way that open source lets you "borrow" credit for your own accomplishments, as a literal segue towards all the things that they could do better if you just STOPPED doing whatever you did, and do it their way. also telling someone that software companies exploit users is really just maligning users... apparently. > There's more free software than ever and virtually all new software contains free software components, and most people call it open source. not because the corporate-owned tech press constantly called it that obviously, there was a completely fair and democratic vote on the matter, and every vote was counted! oh, except lessig himself did that talk at dartmouth about how much lobbyists and campaign funding deregulation has brought democracy to a point where it needs to be "rebooted" (in the strictest fairness to his talk, he was not promoting a revolution but heavy campaign reform and even a call for a constitutional convention) and im sure those lobbyists (who sat on the board of osi) have absolutely NOTHING to do with this issue NOR the language used to reframe said issues, in a way that OF COURSE is practically IDENTICAL to free software in every way but the ones that dont matter! oh, nevermind! > The FOSS community is now dominated by people who are beyond the reach of the FSF's message. ah yes. domination. its practically identical to freedom, its just more specific! im going to play devils advocate here- dont worry, the fsf is the devil im referring to- and say that if open source was SO triumphant and the fsf was SO unable to convey the simplest of messages, there would be absolutely ZERO NEED for devault to make this appeal! this is scooby doo stuff. HEY, THAT OLD PARK IS WORTHLESS, YOU REALLY SHOULD SELL IT TO US SO WE CAN TURN IT INTO SOMETHING! "oh yeah, what are you offering?" "OFFERING? WHY I HEAR ITS HAUNTED! WHY DONT YOU PAY -US- TO UNBURDEN YOU OF IT!" i mean the fsf is dying anyway, free software is completely ineffective, just TAKE IT drew. youve already won, what are you waiting for? "dear princess nokia... today i learned an important lesson about hostile takeovers..." hostile takeovers are MAGIC! > The broader community is enjoying a growth in the diversity of backgrounds and values represented THAT ONES TRUE ACTUALLY! this is one of the things i was referring to when i said that corporations have better tools for dealing with this. open source shouldnt take all the credit for this- its still a scam. if you insist on resolving these two things, ill just give you my take on it- you do you. free software is a legitimate cause. it may NOT be in the best hands anymore, but the old leadership isnt strong or even frank enough to reboot it. an exodus will happen, and i suspect factions will continue to exist. some factions will be about marketing and double standards, like open source is- and some will be about actually defending users, which devault- wearing his developer hat- has spoken against doing recently. open source is a marketing gimmick. notwithstanding, the lgbt community, which is valid, took its concerns to the fsf and a lot of us know how well THAT went. its not like the fsf is top-sponsored by chik-fil-a, but saying the organisation is an ally would also be less than entirely true- and hilarious in my opinion, but only "hilarious are you kidding me?" and not "hilarious ha ha". so the community took its concerns to open source, and open source said "OBVIOUSLY WE STAND WITH YOU!" and i mean, i know what kind of ground this comparison is treading on, so let me just say: the fsf does not see you. that is ENTIRELY the fsfs fault. and the fsfs vitriolic, double standard abuse of leah BY ITSELF is enough to keep me from ever handing a shiny penny over to them, though the list of reasons has grown for years- im a former member. i NEVER gave money to osi. they suck. but yeah, on the other hand- if you want your EXISTENCE to be validated while your freedom as a user is co-opted, its a fact that open source will say the things the FSF REALLY OUGHT TO. and if you NEVER support the fsf again because of that, i probably wont either. my only quibble is that open source isnt honest. do you think corporations are really your friend? are you genuinely impressed by rainbow logos? if so, im saying HORRIBLE things and i too, am a demon. really i think this should be a more grassroots movement. also youre valid, and little if anything makes me angrier about the fsf than they way they have squandered incredibly skilled volunteers and sent them right into the arms of the competition. never, never think id try to convince you to go BACK to the abuse and gaslighting at what the fsf has unfortunately turned into. or maybe im exaggerating, i mean, greg is cool and the fsf hired them. i however, am not personally convinced that the fsf is on the right side of history here, so clearly i dont think theyre doing enough for the percentage of volunteers in the lgbt community. one solid point for open source then, regardless of circumstances or motivations. at the risk of giving too much credit to the wrong recipient of that credit, i dont think free software can make more progress without resolving this. many people have tried, and they also deserve credit. > The FSF fails to understand its place in the world as a whole, or its relationship to the progressive movements taking place in the ecosystem and beyond. i dont think open source does either, because its a counterrevolution that co-opts progressive movements- as do centrists by design. heck, calling the fsf "progressive" is a mistake. free software is MOSTLY a reform movement, with further potential to be fair- and more potential than any insincere capitalist-leaning knockoff has. reformers gonna reform, and co-opters gonna co-opt. neither of these movements are progressive. at least ONE of them could be repurposed (without losing the mission itself) by actual progressives though. oh, maybe when you say "progressive" you mean like bernie sanders, or whoever runs right-of-sanders from the same political party. id be a lot happier if sanders had won when his own party wanted to elect him. that was a great day for elections, as far as voters (the public) making their intentions known counted for anything. it was a terrible day for elections, as far as what voters got from their own party- not to mention the opposition, for all their trouble. still, when i say "progressive" i mean sanders is still a reformer. sanders was a broadly welcomed reformer, in a world where things have gotten so ridiculous that giving out free lunch at school looks like an actual revolution to some people- that would still be a good move though. sanders would have been a quaint start, once he pivoted from campaign promises to the pen meeting the paper. but at the very least, he would have been a quaint start in the right direction. even so, i think the world would be in a better place right now. the problem is with thinking it would be a far better place than it actually would be, not in knowing with some confidence that it would still be better than this mess. > The foundation does not reach out to new leaders in the community, leaving them to form insular, weak institutions among themselves with no central leadership, and leaving us vulnerable to exploitation from growing movements like open core and commercial attacks on the free and open source software brand. mental gymnastics and buy one, get twelve free. i absolutely agree with parts of this, thats why i have to agree with the idea that "free and open source" is better treated as a brand, than a movement. this isnt semantics, its a protest about the actual nature of things, with semantics as an artifact of that protest. of course open source treats it as a brand. gnu is a brand, better known as linux. free software can be reduced to a brand, then rebranded as open source. it can be something entirely different, so it benefits different causes and different people- we already conflated protesting user abuse with insulting users earlier, and by "we" i mean devault. with this rebrand we can (as devault did this year) stop talking about what users want altogether and why they should just shut up and like wayland already. seriously users, whats your problem? > Reforms are sorely needed for the FSF to fulfill it basic mission. i agree with that in spirit, though honestly no amount of reform is going to save the fsf at this point. the false premise is that the fsf is even in control of the fsf like it used to be, but if they were i dont think they would do the right things with that control. instead, the fsf is clearly beholden to sponsors. i understand that most of their donations come from individuals. i guess in theory, that means said individuals have a real say. in practice, the staff have less say than the board. the board limits the board as well. users can try for decades to be heard, so whoevers left off this list, no matter how unlikely it may seem, must run the fsf. oh, i didnt mention the leadership or the corporate sponsors- > Reform the leadership . It's time for Richard Stallman to go. His polemeic rhetoric rivals even my own, and the demographics he represents -- to the exclusion of all others close enough i guess. i mean, if you cant tell that its still stallmans movement, for better or worse, then you arent paying attention. id be happy for stallman to step down further at this point, and that would solve part of the problem, just maybe not the way devault thinks it might. the problems are bigger and stallmans influence is underestimated, and the fsf definitely doesnt have anyone else who can step up to running the organisation. but thats only if you assume that the future of the fsf would be towards the same goals that it used to have, and that future will never happen. the fsf no longer fights for freedom, it fights to tell people to fight for freedom. and the way you fight to tell people to fight for freedom, is to fight to tell them how to tell people to fight for freedom. and the way to fight to tell them how to tell people to fight for freedom, is to tell people to fight for telling people to fight... "hi, we want to talk to you about jesus." "oh thats wonderful! you mean love your neighbour, practice charity, be honest and forthcoming, strive to always be a better human being, forgive your enemies, feed the hungry- that kind of jesus?" "yes, that one." "what do i do?" "well first you accept jesus..." "and then?" "and then you tell everyone you know about jesus..." "okay, and then?" "and then they tell people about jesus." "i think i see where this is going." its just so much easier to say it! the primary mission of the fsf was to fight for free software, i absolutely believe that. ive seen them do it. they must have had some idea what they were doing, because a lot of it actually worked. there were some failures that i think open source wont address, because one of them was not standing up better to open source. the primary mission of the fsf is to tell people about the fsf, and the primary fight of the fsf is to tell people about the... the first rule of free software club is you talk about free software club. the next hundred or so rules of free software club, is that you talk about free software club. > We need more leaders of color, women, LGBTQ representation, and others besides. The present leadership, particularly from RMS, creates an exclusionary environment in a place where inclusion and representation are important for the success of the movement. its true. > Reform the institution. The FSF needs to correct its myopic view of the ecosystem, reach out to emerging leaders throughout the FOSS world, and ask them to take charge of the FSF&'s mission. It's these leaders who hold the reins of the free software movement today -- not the FSF. this one is a lie based on a truth. the truth part is that yes, the fsf needs more leaders. the lie part is that it needs leaders from open source people like torvalds who helped co-opt the movement just to let new masters choose his replacement for him. we dont need to reach out to shills and marketing people- they will always call us first. the fsf DOES need to reach out to leaders who actually care about (and do not simply find further opportunity with) free software, or at least treat leah rowe more fairly, as leah is already doing more than the fsf to further the cause of free hardware- something the fsf erronously thinks it can get by without, or even reframe into a cause more in line with its misplaced priorities for hardware. not only will the fsf never do this, but it will blame the people doing their best and give credit to those doing less. a problem with devaults suggestion here is not so much his fault, though perhaps he could mention it if he agreed about the problem. the problem is that anyone fit to lead at all has already left. and maybe reaching out would get someone to come back, but then this means theres a bigger problem than not reaching out! really, the issue is the multitude of reasons that people left in the first place. and the fact that free software is stuck on a single leader, regardless of whether or not he is still actually performing the task of leading. its all well and good to talk about having better parking for visitors, but if the building has fallen to the ground you should probably work on picking it up again before you worry how many people will be able to drive there. i mean, this isnt a problem of not reaching out- the real problem is that the fsf has flat out failed to learn or address anything about its own mission in many, many years. the bigger problem isnt just who is at the helm, but the fact that just throwing more money and members at the fsf wont make it go or make it do anything. and throwing them at open source instead wont make it go or do anything GOOD, at least for user freedom, which devault is against actually. i guess in that regard, open source really IS very similar! just the same, i do have a bit of quibble with this part. > Reform the message . People depend on the FSF to establish a strong background in free software philosophy and practices within the community, and the FSF is not providing this. The message needs to be made much more accessible and level in tone, and the relationship between free software and open source needs to be reformed so that the FSF and OSI stand together i supported this call at least a dozen or so years ago, yes i typically say ten as a round number, its still more- i regretted it when i saw what open source was doing then, and if i didnt already know better i would still regret falling for this today. i will never support this. the problem was NEVER that free software didnt cave to the effort of corporations to appropriate the movement and all of its work for its own, DIFFERENT but somehow "related" goals. i mean the right has always wanted to help everyone by fixing the economy, and it does that by taking away whatever it does for people and helping businesses FIRST, so businesses can better help PEOPLE. and thats basically what open source wants for free software, the only problem is that like the right, it has the whole concept of helping entirely backwards- to take from those who have the least and give to well established, who became established by exploiting those who have the least. i mean its not hyperbole to call it evil, but its certainly unconventional for not-for-profits to talk that way. my gripe about the fsf is how they have caved to more of this than theyve managed to stand up to. they DO need a new leader, but not to cave more entirely, but to stand up against this nonsense. that includes the leaderships own nonsense against simple well-established things like singular they. you think that fighting singular they wont actually hurt anyone, and then an actual non-binary developer doing LOADS of amazing work that does actually help the causes of the fsf and the gnu project gets treated like a villain, instead of a hero. the leadership of the gnu project INCLUDES actual bigots, some of whom are worse than stallmans most foolish rhetoric and pointless, arrogant, dehumanising nitpicking. this is hardly a defence of stallman, but the problem gets worse still if you keep looking past that. im not suggesting we fix just one thing and leave the other- from what ive seen of whats left of gnu leadership, you can disband the entire organsiation, i do not care. but if youre going to put open source in its place, youve solved almost nothing. maybe one thing, which is certainly NOT the mission of free software itself, but yes i think treating leah rowe like a human being is a requirement for free software. no, the fsf doesnt do that, gnu doesnt do that, and i ran out of patience about this years ago. instead of reforming the fsf, why not simply disband it entirely? i mean, to be fair thats what devault really wants, only he wants to put a fake fsf in its place. id rather let the real thing flourish, without being prey to so many marketers, lobbyists and sponsors. i dont think we can compromise on this, and thats exactly the real problem open source has always had with free software. > Decouple the FSF from the GNU project . FSF and GNU have worked hand-in-hand over decades to build the movement from scratch, but their privileged relationship has become obsolete. the fsf already tries to pretend its doing this, but this cant be a very honest proposal if you dont get into any details about what it even means! to the best of my understanding, gnu runs itself (via stallman and/or gac or whatever) but stallman has been pushed out of this through the gcc steering committee, through a coup, through someone hacking his website, and even so all of that is very little when compared to the fact that he proposes some things that even i agree matter, and the gnu developers simply ignore it and do whatever anyway. i mean there was a coup, but also the not-a-coup does whatever they want while the gac tries to get them to explain what theyre doing. the gac includes bigots and people i consider dubious or compromised at best, and i have no intention of naming names when rome is already on fire and i can just watch it burn. even so, talking about decoupling gnu from the fsf while leaving out the control one of the largest for-profit monopolies has gained over gcc is just a completely dishonest argument for whats absolutely tantamount to fraud and theft. this is the best future that the present of gnu deserves. its a dying project, and we should let it die. until recently i was in favour of salvage, but salvage what exactly? oh listen, theo de raadt, he would love to have zero components in openbsd and for all that effort, i know there are a few bits and pieces that everyones going to end up installing one way or another, i dont dispute that. no ones left who can defend it from takeover, and i would be happier if people stopped pretending. i have spent years watching this, theres never good news. in fact, the only good news is there isnt even MORE news thats bad. we are past the point where stalling the inevitable has any real purpose, if you ask me its definitely better for SOMEONE that the fsf remains viable in appearance but its got nothing to do with users or freedom, nor does open source, nor does mr. devault. this entire farce is an exercise in futility, but at least maybe theres some point in saying it is? > Develop new copyleft licenses . The GPL family of licenses has served us well, but we need to do better. The best copyleft license today is the MPL i mean... that line is too ridiculous for even bryan lunduke to say it. i read the justification, and my best guess about it is that someones been hanging out lately with elon musk and joe rogan, but hey, have fun. > The free software movement needs a strong force uniting it: we face challenges from many sides yes, thats what we need- a free software movement that isnt so fragmented, so it can finally unite against itself and once and for all get out of the way of what open source wants entirely. i mean really, open source split off from free software twenty years ago, and ever since its never shut up about calling for unity with the ones that left. but i can totally imagine lunduke rattling that part off unironically on some podcast. its the hilarious double standard that tells you what open source is really all about. > it's time for the FSF to step up to the wheel and direct its coming successes in the name of software freedom. that would mean more if anyone could prove that devault even knows what software freedom is. you can blame admittedly terrible essays and dense documentation, i dont think microsoft or ibm has done a better job explaining to the public what theyre really about- before it became even more obedient, osi used to host a nice collection of things that explained what microsoft was trying to do to the movement. i think the real problem here is that no matter what you say or how you explain it, some people just dont, wont ever really care. of those, some will insist they do, because the thing they dont care about has something they want. i can only surmise from devaults proximity to these ancient and tired and MOSTLY pointless demands, that he is sympathetic to the hypocrisy and insipid take on "software freedom" that open source foists on the world, as a substitute for viable software freedom. by "viable" i mean in dire need of maintenance, but better done by the leaders mr. devault insists the fsf needs to reach out to. id personally be happier if both open source and the fsf simply stopped helping, white-saviour-on-african-voluntour-style, and left us the hell alone to clean up the decade-plus-sized messes the fsf (and its opportunistic buddies from silicon valley and more nearby) have left for those of use who actually care about this. but i suspect that open source isnt willing to practice what it preaches, and simply stop and get out of the way. it wants free software to do that, but solely because open source is "just like free software, only better!" isnt thats what colonisers always say? license: cc by-sa 2.0 => https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ => https://freesoftwareresistance.neocities.org