Not the First Time We Tried (FSF, GNU, RMS, etc.)

I think this comes down to people having differences of opinion on what is important.<p>I read these complaints and don’t think they are very important. Especially over a period of decades. If this is the worse that people can bring up, then I just don’t get it.<p>In the future will we have two kinds of organizations, one where people file complaints about “ such as taking over sessions through loud disruptions” and one where people don’t care?<p>I suppose that people care about different things, but then for people who don’t care will we all end up being in one end, and everyone who wants “ Safe Space Policy” I partially applied in other orgs.<p>The challenge I face is that I don’t want the Postel’s law group full of only jerks. But I also don’t want to be part of an org that spends so much time on what I see as administrative bikeshedding.<p>Of course people are free to do whatever they like, but I certainly won’t donate to FSF if they go the way I disagree with. And I don’t think a safe FSF will further free software in the best way.

Oh no, of course is not the first time you tried to take down the free software movement. First time was fifteen years ago with the (now a hollow shell) Open Source Initiative. For the record, there is also a list in support of Richard Stallman [1], which right now is signed by more people, but less organizations.<p>Which comes to show the glaring disconnect between organizations and the user base. As the organizations are too busy showing each other how good and inclusive they are, while at the same time they give fat raises to their CEOs and fire their workers.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;rms-support-letter.github.io&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;rms-support-letter.github.io&#x2F;</a>

Where was Sumana when Jeffrey Epstein funded all sorts of centers at MIT? His proclivities and activities were well known since 2005, yet the social justice crowd stayed quiet. Epstein was in a position to cause damage, and he did. Prostitution, death threats, little black books, you name it. <i>Donald Trump</i> was sufficiently put out by his activities to ban him from Mar-do-Lago!<p>But the woke crowd instead targets Stallman because he is an easy target, he looks like a vagrant and has disgusting habits. Can please someone point out what he did? (No, off-colour jokes don&#x27;t count, only real-life troubles for another person).<p>D &amp; I much? Pass the bucket, I&#x27;m going to throw up.

To coopt Bender, why not go start your own [software project] with [diversity] and [inclusion]?<p>You could fork the entire FSF’s software suite, and mold a culture around it that matches your priorities. That’s the beauty of free software, you don’t need to ask permission. Or write petitions. You just go and do it.

The fact is with these &quot;social justice&quot; initiatives is that they are completely orthogonal issues to the organization and their goals. The FSF is about Free Software, Linux is about Linux. These people want to impose their own specific politics upon others, in this case using intimidation and shame. Of course some organizations will sign these letters, they are much more worried about being on the PR approved right side.<p>These people should merely create their own organizations. This is what they would often say when for example a red team politician complains about being blocked from twitter.

My biggest worry is that these political fights will lead to a degradation in the quality of Free software products, a slowdown in code and software contributions from developers and coders and a general malaise in the whole Free software movement as the idealogical battles are fought out. I can only see the winners in the long run being those people or organisations that seek to gain from the FSF&#x27;s weakness.