That blog post is full of fallacies when talking about people “against” Stallman, including (but not limited to) folks who have actually worked with him. Besides, the author seems to assume that RMS/Stallman are the only entities promoting free/libre/open source software. Here is a video of a guy who says he actually worked with RMS: https://youtu.be/R2SKenHRhMg
There is a much bigger argument that was being made in that article – that most of the public prosecution of RMS is driven by corporates who would want to see a weakened argument against surveillance but open-source stuff. You will notice most of the organizations and individuals taking a stand on this so passionately say almost nothing when Facebook and Google and Amazon commit all manner of ongoing atrocities around the world. RMS and the sexual consent contest is a major issue and deserves everyone’s attention – but we can also do both things; fight for kid’s safety + fight for free software/society. Both are mutually inclusive, but the pitchfork public prosecutors would want to use the kids issue to argue that anything RMS has touched is dirty – and that is how these money people win the public.
I didnt reply to Peter because I didnt understand them. I don’t understand what they mean related to the article I posted.
I understood (and other people who read it with me) the same as you right know. The arguments are pointing how most external people miss what some of the organizations and people who sign the letter agaisnt RMS do.
Hmm, I watched the video and that guy basically has a general objection with the FSF (and was hoping that with RMS gone they would fundamentally change). While some of the points raised do have general merit, I fail to see how this is relevant to the specific discussion about RMS.
Typical article by a white techbro. /s
who is dis??🙄
