image transcription:

big collage of people captioned, “the only people I wouldn’t have minded being billionaires”
names(and a bit of info, which is not included in the collage) of people in collage(from top left, row-wise):

  • Alexandra Elbakyan, creator of Sci-Hub. perhaps the single-most important person in the scientific community regarding access to research papers.
  • Linus Torvalds, creator of linux kernel and git, courtesy of which we have GNU/Linux.
  • David Revoy, french artist famous for his pepper&carrot, a libre webcomic. inspiration for artists who are into free software movement
  • Richard Stallman, arch-hacker who started it all. founded the GNU project, free software movement, Emacs, GCC, GPL, concept of copyleft, among many other things. champions for free software to this day(is undergoing treatment for cancer at the moment).
  • Jean-Baptiste Kempf, president of VLC media player for 2 decades now
  • Ian Murdock, founder of Debian GNU/Linux and Debian manifesto. died too soon.
  • Alexis Kauffmann, creator of framasoft, a French nonprofit organisation that champions free software. known for providing alternatives to centralised services, notable one being framapad and peertube.
  • Aaron Swartz, a brilliant programmer who created RSS, markdown, creative commons, and is known for his involvement in creation of reddit. he also died too soon.
  • Bram Moolenaar, creator of vim, a charityware.

on the bottom right is the text reading, “plus the thousands of free software enthusiasts working tirelessly.”

  • kadu@lemmy.world
    4911·
    1 year ago

    Ah yes, Richard Stallman, the guy who defended his paedophile colleague by saying some kids mature earlier than others. What a nice billionaire, let’s religiously love this dude.

    • nixcamic@lemmy.world
      81·
      1 year ago

      IMO RMS already has the attitude of a billionaire. He’s a thoroughly weird man who says stuff he really shouldn’t then stands by it. He’s right about a lot of things when it comes to software, licensing, and open source in general but outside of that track he’s more than a little loopy.

      I think it might be because he’s had to fight society so long for things he knew he was right about that now he doesn’t know how to have people tell him “no Richard, that’s ducked up”.

      Anyhow, I don’t think him being a billionaire would be a good idea, him having enough funds to branch off into doing wherever strikes his fancy could be very bad.

      And Linus, I love Linus but look at how he’s grown as a person and listened and changed how he interacts with other kernel developers. Would he still have been as receptive if he was a billionaire? Something tells me no.

    • lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      1813·
      1 year ago

      I understand your point, but those weren’t the words he said. though I don’t think that’s going to make a difference.

      I like RMS for what he did(and is doing) for the free software community. I can also talk about some uncanny things about Gandhi, but that doesn’t make his contribution to the independence movement and his views on nonviolence any less relevant.

      to me, a person should be seen in his entirety. because only fictional characters are without flaws.

      • Nate Cox@programming.devEnglish
        293·
        1 year ago

        People should indeed be seen in their entirety, the failure of this is why so many people get upset about Stallman.

        The guy is routinely portrayed as a bastion of righteous good will, championing the little guy against the evil corporations. The hero worship is real.

        Some of us see Stallman as a misogynistic asshole who routinely belittles people on mailing lists when they don’t agree with him and publicly defends people who sexually abuse children.

        For some of us, it feels like we need to go out of our way to point this out because we don’t want a guy like that as the public face of something we care about.

        • lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.deOP
          67·
          1 year ago

          I agree with your point in spirit, but again, he didn’t say any such thing. I haven’t talked to him in person, so, I can only rely on internet to validate/refute those claims.

          he is the public face of free software because others have their own terminologies(e.g.: open source championed by bruce perens and eric raymond), with which the GNU project disagrees.

        • rodolfo@lemmy.world
          56·
          1 year ago

          what did it he say about women that makes him a misogynist?

          Edit ok found this

          https://www.arp242.net/rms.html

          a pretty much reasonable, reasoned and merciless account on the figure of rms. I very largely agree with it - spoiler he isn’t a misogynist, just a super massive weirdo

          • ReCursing@kbin.social
            4·
            1 year ago

            just a super massive weirdo

            I once heard him described as “The smartest man to ever throw a tantrum like a 4 year old”

            • rodolfo@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 year ago

              this thread is terrible… people reporting "I heard of"s as proofs. eh once I read, eeeh once someone told… once sjws bite, there’s no chance they let go. and the most important thing is that 99.999999% of the people bad mouthing rms have at best fifth hand reports about him.

              to all the superior etichs white knights: I’m not defending rms.

              I’m very worried about the lynching, with proof based on I once read, i heard of, and also straight out of jealousy and envy.

              rms, like suggested in the article I posted, could very well be a neuro divergent person. I wonder how many of all of these rabid dogs biting at him preach themselves as super supportive, super inclusive, 360° hexa-dimensional full rainbow, but then aren’t able to understand the person they have in front of them. let’s start by ruining someone. there’s always time to say “I was wrong, I’d like to apologize. At the time I didn’t know. I vow to be a better person.”

                  • ReCursing@kbin.social
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    Your comment came across as attacking me, and also as a little bit crazed. That said I completely agree with your last sentence, being able to admit you are wrong is a very important skill and one many people could do with learning (I try, I don;t always succeed but I try)

      • kadu@lemmy.world
        55·
        1 year ago

        to me, a person should be seen in his entirety. because only fictional characters are without flaws.

        There are “flaws” like adding pineapple to pizza, and there are “flaws” like defending and encouraging sex with minors. Fuck Richard Stallman.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

            “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

            RMS on June 28th, 2003

            "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

            RMS on June 5th, 2006

            "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

            Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

            RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

            “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

            RMS on June 28th, 2003

            "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

            RMS on June 5th, 2006

            "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

            Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

            RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

    • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
      21·
      1 year ago

      Aaron Schwartz too

      https://web.archive.org/web/20031229025933/http:/bits.are.notabug.com/

      I fight laws that restrict what bits I can put on my website.

      Unlike humans, computers see everything as bits (numbers). They can’t tell the difference between the random movement of a lava lamp and a copyrighted song. I believe that our technology should similarly make no distinction and that I have the right to transmit arbitrary bits.

      Here’s a list of laws that restrict this right, in order from least controvertial (i.e. most people agree this freedom shouldn’t be restricted) to most.

      …

      …

      …

      In the US, it is illegal to possess or distribute child pornography, apparently because doing so will encourage people to sexually abuse children.

      This is absurd logic. Child pornography is not necessarily abuse. Even if it was, preventing the distribution or posession of the evidence won’t make the abuse go away. We don’t arrest everyone with videotapes of murders, or make it illegal for TV stations to show people being killed.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 year ago

        Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

        “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

        RMS on June 28th, 2003

        "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

        RMS on June 5th, 2006

        "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

        Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

        RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 year ago

          Since the other person hasn’t (surprise), here’s Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

          “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

          RMS on June 28th, 2003

          "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

          RMS on June 5th, 2006

          "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

          Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

          RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

          • WldFyre@lemm.ee
            2·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I’m not surprised either haha

            Thanks for the quotes, what an appalling man smh