Read it. And then remember this man has done more than almost anyone to create the network you love to hate him on. And his public behavior has been equally worrisome. According to dozens of witnesses, Stallman actively sexually harassed women students and faculty at MIT, for 30 or more years.
It had allegedly reached the point that he was asked so many times to stop asking out colleagues and students that he decided to create and hand out a business card to non-verbally harass. On April 12, Stallman responded to these charges in a statement , writing that:. Ever since my teenage years, I felt as if there were a filmy curtain separating me from other people my age. I understood the words of their conversations, but I could not grasp why they said what they did.
Later in life, I discovered that some people had negative reactions to my behavior, which I did not even know about.
Tending to be direct and honest with my thoughts, I sometimes made others uncomfortable or even offended them — especially women. Some people could cope with this; others were hurt. I apologize to each of them. Please direct your criticism at me, not at the Free Software Foundation. I need people to know we're not criticizing RMS for missing social cues or being socially awkward. Despite the fact that diverse and inclusive open source communities — like with all teams and organizations — are proven more productive and make better choices.
This lack of inclusion is a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy pushing marginalized groups away. The sheer fact that the majority of contributors are either volunteering or working for a corporation that sponsors a project limits diversity to those with the time and privilege to participate — and to those with access to tech roles at those companies.
But was a year of social reckoning and the open source community responded. A lot of performative actions were taken, but there was also a more active discussion around codes of conducts and enforcement. This makes it crystal clear that they's rather have RMS around than become an inclusive and welcoming environment to more than half the people who write software. Toxic to the core. She pointed out that, first, he never really left, he just publicly stepped down from the board.
Try to work with peer organizations to find common ground and collaborate on solutions. Much of the software industry, particularly those with roots in open source, have publicly turned their backs on the FSF over the last few weeks. Red Hat has withdrawn its funding and endorsement of the foundation. Outreachy has barred FSF from participation in its program. This hypothetical person appears to believe that developing free software is incompatible with being paid.
If so, she is misinformed—hundreds of people are now paid to develop free software. Some of them work for Sun. She is challenging us to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. But what if she can't get one of these free software jobs? That could happen—not everybody can get them today. But it doesn't excuse developing proprietary software. A desire for profit is not wrong in itself, but it isn't the sort of urgent overriding cause that could excuse mistreating others.
Proprietary software divides the users and keeps them helpless, and that is wrong. Nobody should do that. So what should she do instead? Anything else. She could get a job in another field.
But she doesn't have to go that far—most software development is custom software, not meant to be published either as free software or as proprietary software. In most cases, she can do that without raising an ethical issue. It isn't heroism, but it isn't villainy either. In the age of the printing press, that was true: copyright was an industrial restriction on publishers, requiring them to pay the author of a book.
It did not restrict the readers, because the actions it restricted were things only a publisher could do. But this is not true any more. Now copyright is a restriction on the public, for the sake of the publishers, who give the authors a small handout to buy their support against the public. Were I freelancing again, I would not want to release my works without the minimal security of payment for my labor copyright affords. You could do that without copyright. It is part of your business dealings with the magazine you are writing for.
But please note that I don't say copyright should be entirely abolished. You can disagree with what I said, but it makes no sense to attack me for things I did not say. What I said in my speech was that software which is published should be free. For a more detailed accounting of Stallman's views regarding copyright as extended to fields outside of software, readers are urged to go to the GNU web site , and to Stallman's personal site. This speech gives my thought on the question. As far as I know, that is still the case… However, whether the legislation has been implemented or not, the news is still encouraging, as at least free software is being considered seriously as a legitimate option.
What does this and other news suggest regarding your future efforts? That is, are you going to pitch the cause more strongly to developing nations?
I am on my way to South Africa in two weeks [from the time of this writing, mid-May], and a Free Software Foundation is being started in India. Request new password. About us Nos positions Wiki Help us Join us. Submitted by april on 12 September, - Printer-friendly version French Portuguese. Press information Contact us. Pour en savoir plus sur le microblog. Aide flux RSS. Unless stated otherwise, this site is copyright April and licensed under LAL version 1.
0コメント