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 > ) > 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