the movement going forward

[Thomas Lord <lord@basiscraft.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6419 bytes --]

This is a big crisis for the free software movement.

To briefly review the past few days and weeks:
----------------------------------------------

  We learned that MIT and in particular the Media Lab knowingly
  and secretively made itself a servant of a rich sexual
  predator and eugenicist.  "The prestigious, high power Media
  Lab?  That Media Lab?", one might ask. Well, by way of answer,
  news of the Lab's corruption in relation to Epstein eclipsed
  another breaking news story - the Lab's history of raising
  money via faked demos.  That Media Lab.  (h/t Dr. Sara Taber -
  @SarahTaber_bww on twitter - see
  <https://gizmodo.com/mit-built-a-theranos-for-plants-1837968240>)

  An MIT alum then launched a successful media campaign
  promoting some falsehoods about emails RMS had sent.  Among
  the noteworthy consequences of her effort, the media spotlight
  has shifted from the corruption at MIT to the false
  accusations against RMS.

  The Free Software Conservancy joined in the false media
  campaign, making an unsigned personal attack on RMS under the
  Conservancy's name.  (I am also hearing a rumor that someone
  from the Conservancy might replace RMS at the FSF.)

  The Free Software Foundation has done nothing to correct
  the record and, curiously, is the sole source of news
  about RMS' resignation.

A broader crisis:
-----------------

  My understanding of the aim of the free software movement was
  formed when I first became active, in the late 1980s, and when
  I worked, for a time, for the FSF on the GNU project in the
  mid-1990s.  I was never as successful as I hoped in advancing
  the movement, but I think I did help.

  I believe that the aim of the free software movement is to get
  software freedom going *in practice*.  What do I mean?  I mean
  a huge cultural and pragmatic shift.  I want everyone who uses
  computers to know, and to figure into their plans, that they
  and everyone can study the source code, modify it, run it as
  they see fit, and share it and their modifications.  I want
  everyone to think of these freedoms as practical, useful
  options for how to solve problems.

  I have found that, today, if I want to explain the movement
  for software freedom to someone, that it useless -- even
  harmful -- to direct them to the FSF web site.  The web site
  is useless for someone trying to understand what the movement
  is about or to get started switching to libre software tools.
  The web site offers no real help to developers who are trying
  to empower users in concrete, impactful ways.  The web site
  content is largely obscure platitudes and self promotion.  The
  organization, these days, seems to be largely "about" itself
  and nothing more.  It appears to me to be falling fast into
  the trap of being a charity that is mainly concerned with
  making its executive and employee payrolls.

  More generally, the GNU project, the movement in general, have
  lost any central focus on actually getting software freedom
  into practice on a mass scale.

  We need a reboot.

The historical moment:
----------------------

  The climate emergency demands revolutionary change in our
  systems of production and distribution, rapidly, on a mass
  (global) scale.  It therefore probably also demands
  significant change in our systems of governance.

  Software freedom, it seems to me, is tactically critical to
  our current needs.  We need software freedom to implement
  massive changes to our systems of production and distribution.
  We need software freedom to facilitate democratized control of
  social communication, globally.  We need that freedom because
  we can reasonably anticipate that no centralized system of
  software production and customization can keep up with the
  scale and scope of changes we must now make.

  Were the Free Software Foundation in the business of
  "[promoting] the development and use of free software," I
  would think it should be analyzing what currently blocks mass
  adaptation of these tools, in light of current social
  conditions -- and then working to cure those obstacles.

  We (as the movement) have lots of "pieces" - software
  components, minimally compromised hardware, and so forth.  We
  are weak on easily adopted tools, on documentation, on
  promotion and experimentation about how to make software
  freedom a widespread practice - a way of solving social needs
  - rather than "just a theory" or "just a license".

  We can do it.  But the FSF as it stands, and the movement as
  it stands, aren't helping.

One idea for "what next":
-------------------------

  I don't think, based on the evidence so far, that we can trust
  the FSF or the Conservancy to "do the right thing".  The
  intentions of the individuals who run those organizations
  might be good, but we see that in practice they are not doing
  what they ought to be doing.  The occasion of RMS leaving
  provides several examples, as noted in part above.

  I think that what is needed is a second-generation GNU project,
  but one that is squarely focused on deploying software freedom.

  The original GNU project was, necessarily, focussed on cranking
  out programs.  We needed a replacement for sed(1) and sh(1) and
  the C library, and so forth.  The goal was to accumulate a body
  of source code that added up to a "complete system".

  Where the original project cut corners, to achieve that first
  essential goal, includes:

  0. Failing to think collectively about the practical role of
     software freedom in real and present society!

  1. Documentation.

  2. Tutorials and training.

  3. System integeration of complete systems that do useful things
     "out of the box".

  4. Getting free software into the hands of a mass of people,
     and helping them get started using it and using it by
     excersizing their software freedom.

  Where the movement has got caught up or stuck in the weeds:

  1. Trying to directly compete with "social media" as defined
     by clearly evil Silicon Valley firms.

  2. Being content with obscure shit like Debian.  Making
     a big pile of mud rather than a broadly useful tool.

  3. Getting caught up in an ego/career game of projects
     that compete for attention and never cooperate in assembling
     a useful totality in service of human need.

  So let's renew the GNU project, but for reals.

  -t
  (aka Thomas Lord)

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 6741 bytes --]

   This is a big crisis for the free software movement.
   To briefly review the past few days and weeks:
   ----------------------------------------------
     We learned that MIT and in particular the Media Lab knowingly
     and secretively made itself a servant of a rich sexual
     predator and eugenicist.  "The prestigious, high power Media
     Lab?  That Media Lab?", one might ask. Well, by way of answer,
     news of the Lab's corruption in relation to Epstein eclipsed
     another breaking news story - the Lab's history of raising
     money via faked demos.  That Media Lab.  (h/t Dr. Sara Taber -
     @SarahTaber_bww on twitter - see
     <https://gizmodo.com/mit-built-a-theranos-for-plants-1837968240>)
     An MIT alum then launched a successful media campaign
     promoting some falsehoods about emails RMS had sent.  Among
     the noteworthy consequences of her effort, the media spotlight
     has shifted from the corruption at MIT to the false
     accusations against RMS.
     The Free Software Conservancy joined in the false media
     campaign, making an unsigned personal attack on RMS under the
     Conservancy's name.  (I am also hearing a rumor that someone
     from the Conservancy might replace RMS at the FSF.)
     The Free Software Foundation has done nothing to correct
     the record and, curiously, is the sole source of news
     about RMS' resignation.
   A broader crisis:
   -----------------
     My understanding of the aim of the free software movement was
     formed when I first became active, in the late 1980s, and when
     I worked, for a time, for the FSF on the GNU project in the
     mid-1990s.  I was never as successful as I hoped in advancing
     the movement, but I think I did help.
     I believe that the aim of the free software movement is to get
     software freedom going *in practice*.  What do I mean?  I mean
     a huge cultural and pragmatic shift.  I want everyone who uses
     computers to know, and to figure into their plans, that they
     and everyone can study the source code, modify it, run it as
     they see fit, and share it and their modifications.  I want
     everyone to think of these freedoms as practical, useful
     options for how to solve problems.
     I have found that, today, if I want to explain the movement
     for software freedom to someone, that it useless -- even
     harmful -- to direct them to the FSF web site.  The web site
     is useless for someone trying to understand what the movement
     is about or to get started switching to libre software tools.
     The web site offers no real help to developers who are trying
     to empower users in concrete, impactful ways.  The web site
     content is largely obscure platitudes and self promotion.  The
     organization, these days, seems to be largely "about" itself
     and nothing more.  It appears to me to be falling fast into
     the trap of being a charity that is mainly concerned with
     making its executive and employee payrolls.
     More generally, the GNU project, the movement in general, have
     lost any central focus on actually getting software freedom
     into practice on a mass scale.
     We need a reboot.
   The historical moment:
   ----------------------
     The climate emergency demands revolutionary change in our
     systems of production and distribution, rapidly, on a mass
     (global) scale.  It therefore probably also demands
     significant change in our systems of governance.
     Software freedom, it seems to me, is tactically critical to
     our current needs.  We need software freedom to implement
     massive changes to our systems of production and distribution.
     We need software freedom to facilitate democratized control of
     social communication, globally.  We need that freedom because
     we can reasonably anticipate that no centralized system of
     software production and customization can keep up with the
     scale and scope of changes we must now make.
     Were the Free Software Foundation in the business of
     "[promoting] the development and use of free software," I
     would think it should be analyzing what currently blocks mass
     adaptation of these tools, in light of current social
     conditions -- and then working to cure those obstacles.
     We (as the movement) have lots of "pieces" - software
     components, minimally compromised hardware, and so forth.  We
     are weak on easily adopted tools, on documentation, on
     promotion and experimentation about how to make software
     freedom a widespread practice - a way of solving social needs
     - rather than "just a theory" or "just a license".
     We can do it.  But the FSF as it stands, and the movement as
     it stands, aren't helping.
   One idea for "what next":
   -------------------------
     I don't think, based on the evidence so far, that we can trust
     the FSF or the Conservancy to "do the right thing".  The
     intentions of the individuals who run those organizations
     might be good, but we see that in practice they are not doing
     what they ought to be doing.  The occasion of RMS leaving
     provides several examples, as noted in part above.
     I think that what is needed is a second-generation GNU project,
     but one that is squarely focused on deploying software freedom.
     The original GNU project was, necessarily, focussed on cranking
     out programs.  We needed a replacement for sed(1) and sh(1) and
     the C library, and so forth.  The goal was to accumulate a body
     of source code that added up to a "complete system".
     Where the original project cut corners, to achieve that first
     essential goal, includes:
     0. Failing to think collectively about the practical role of
        software freedom in real and present society!
     1. Documentation.
     2. Tutorials and training.
     3. System integeration of complete systems that do useful things
        "out of the box".
     4. Getting free software into the hands of a mass of people,
        and helping them get started using it and using it by
        excersizing their software freedom.
     Where the movement has got caught up or stuck in the weeds:
     1. Trying to directly compete with "social media" as defined
        by clearly evil Silicon Valley firms.
     2. Being content with obscure shit like Debian.  Making
        a big pile of mud rather than a broadly useful tool.
     3. Getting caught up in an ego/career game of projects
        that compete for attention and never cooperate in assembling
        a useful totality in service of human need.
     So let's renew the GNU project, but for reals.
     -t
     (aka Thomas Lord)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss