Re: the movement going forward

[Thomas Lord <lord@basiscraft.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6910 bytes --]

I don't quite know which piece of software so mangled the formatting of
a plain-text email - perhaps it was the mail client I'm using or perhaps
it was something on the libreplanet.org end. 

For convenience, I've included the non-mangled plain text file as an
attachment to this message. 

-t 

On 2019-09-17 16:36, Thomas Lord wrote:

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

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 7866 bytes --]

   I don't quite know which piece of software so mangled the formatting of
   a plain-text email - perhaps it was the mail client I'm using or
   perhaps it was something on the libreplanet.org end.

   For convenience, I've included the non-mangled plain text file as an
   attachment to this message.

   -t



   On 2019-09-17 16:36, Thomas Lord wrote:

      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
        <[1]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)

   _______________________________________________
   libreplanet-discuss mailing list
   [2]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   [3]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

References

   1. https://gizmodo.com/mit-built-a-theranos-for-plants-1837968240
   2. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   3. https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

[-- Attachment #2: rms --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 6431 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 #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

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