2010 Trenton Computer Festival breakdown doesn't approach the issues under discussion

[J.B. Nicholson]

murph wrote:
> I'd like to share an experience of mine with Richard Stallman, and
> some reflections on the current situation.
>
> In about 2010 or so, I went to the Trenton Computer Festival.  Richard
> was slated to talk.  It was a treat to have him speak close to home
> for me.  I also noticed that he was listed as a leader in Open Source,
> and I thought that it would be amusing to see how he would react to
> that.  Maybe some witty barbs, and an explanation of the difference
> between the Free and Open movements, as a learning experience for the
> organizers, as well as the audience.
>
> I was wrong.  It was not amusing.


What was wrong was listing RMS as something that was not then nor is now true. RMS 
has a habit of sending organizations a document detailing terms on which he'll agree 
to speak at functions like this. He's very clear to include verbiage on how to 
properly address his work. I'm guessing that the Trenton Computer Festival organizers 
received a copy and didn't read it or they chose to ignore it.

What would have been more kind to him in your reaction is to understand that 2010 he 
had spent most of his life working on the free software social movement (founding it, 
working on licenses, programs, and books for its benefit, and all along the way 
advocating on its behalf for decades). A better way to find out how he would react 
would be to ask him in an interview what he makes of the open source development 
methodology or to ask him how free software and open source differ.

By 2010 the Trenton Computer Festival organizers and anyone else could have also read 
at least two essays on this topic:

Older essay:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

Newer essay:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

> When Richard was on stage, and found out about the "Open Source"
> moniker, he was outraged.  I don't recall his words of over a decade
> ago, but I thought I recall more than a little cursing.  Regardless of
> the exact words, it was unbecoming of someone of his stature.  It was
> less statesman, and more temper tantrum.


Your reaction in this story contains nothing critical of the Trenton Computer 
Festival. They deserve some bad press on that, particularly for someone who has held 
on to that grudge over a decade later. I see no such indication in your story and I 
find that telling since it was their wrong description that initiated this entire story.

Or how about Linus Torvalds' well-known cursing: I've never seen anyone extend this 
kind of reaction to the Linux kernel or any of its contributors when Linus Torvalds 
said harsh words to programmers who didn't meet Torvalds' expectations for quality work.

Stallman is assigned the burden of having to not only have his work misrepresented (I 
assure you that's not the first time that has happened), but his reaction to the 2010 
Trenton Computer Festival is being used as an excuse to cast aspersions on his board 
membership to the FSF over a decade later. This effectively joins up with an effort 
which, in a completely separate letter from yours, tries to argue for all of us to 
also "refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS" which is a huge 
overreach and opportunistic power grab which would end up punishing many others.

> I walked away that day, not energized about supporting Free Software,
> but instead thinking about the man that was in the front of the room
> talking about it.  Was this the right person to further that cause?


Yes he is as are anyone else who actually argues for free software. As to his being 
upset, we'll all have moments where we are flustered and not at our best, and that's 
all you're really describing in your story.

I couldn't name 5 other people who do as thorough a job of speaking about software 
freedom, as consistently, and who take as many bad-faith attacks in the doing as RMS 
has for as long as he's been doing that work. Perhaps those who find such fault in 
him should take up the task of advocating for software freedom (not the 
proprietor-friendly weaker open source) so they can get a taste of the typically 
careful parsing RMS gives his questioners.

> I haven't personally seen the abuse that people have reported [...]


None of which has anything to do with how well RMS discusses software freedom. Let's 
not conflate allegations of bad speech here. Speech to or about women, transsexuals, 
and saying things others don't want to read on rape (which are the main points the 
objections) is not the same as getting upset at a conference where RMS appears to 
have been set up with a mistaken (generously described) introduction. Offering this 
story here in this temporal context comes off to me as piling on more clarifying 
anything relevant to the complaints at hand.

> [...] I have seen plenty of cringey moments in other talks and at LibrePlanet.

In the 2015 LibrePlanet where the FSF apparently invited Robinson Tryon to speak 
about "Document Freedom Day" and he gave a false dichotomy about software freedom and 
then endorsed non-free software as being just another option. 
https://digitalcitizen.info/2015/03/22/libreplanet-2015-speaker-on-document-freedom-day-equivocates-on-software-freedom/ 
has more. Endorsing non-free software at a free software conference strikes me as an 
objectively bad choice for the FSF, real reason for the FSF to review whom they're 
inviting and having people on-hand to respond to framing free software as just 
another choice, one among many ("So I think it’s really important for us to actually 
be honest with students, to give them a full picture. I think it’s just as 
irresponsible for us to tell students ‘You should only use free software’ and that’s 
the whole message we give, as to say ‘You should just use Microsoft products’."). 
That's open source talk, that minimizes the importance of software freedom if not 
eliminating the ethics behind software freedom as a point on which to consistently 
push for and choose free software.

> I don't wish to stop him from speaking his mind, frankly.  There are
> plenty of people that speak without regard to others' feelings.  I
> just don't think that he is someone that I can get behind and say that
> he represents me.


That's okay because RMS is not trying to represent you. His job is to advocate for 
free software and making all published software free software, educating the masses 
about why free software is critical to our lives. You're apparently free to represent 
yourself.

> Being reelected to the board signifies that his present actions are acceptable,
> since nothing seems to have changed other than the passing of time.

He resigned from that board and was off that board for a while. This points to a 
major problem with the revived disapprovals -- there's no due process involved, no 
measure of what is offensive (akin to written policy or laws), no sense of the 
problem in being punished twice for the same offense, and no clear end if this is 
given into a second time (what if RMS seeks employment somewhere else, does he get 
hassled about that too? Is his work anywhere else to be artificially magnified to 
mean 'representing you' no matter what he does? Do others get the same treatment if 
they too have a record of saying things others don't want to hear or read?).