What can we improve from now on?

[6r1d]

Things are calming down, but we have two communities from now on. One denounces RMS, other doesn't. There's still little communication and there's a bit of conflict when somebody doesn't want to listen to you.

The fact many don't know the situation can potentially hurt RMS at a later date. FSF is almost broken, and it's probably broken because it relied on sponsorship money. The fact our letter only had appeared only in some news is strange, as well.

What can we do from now on to mend and improve things? Should we act at all? I propose an open discussion on that matter.

[Miezhiko]

I have suggestion: let close all our opensource projects (sorry in advance)

[6r1d]

(sorry in advance)

You don't have to be sorry for helping us think. Nobody should feel this way. There are too much reaction to the very discussion, so we get distracted and point fingers. And that hurts the community.

I have suggestion: let close all our opensource projects

You have a point, actually. But that way helps the large companies, because it'll lead at worst to development of better disassembler and more closed source future. Or only one community that tends to ignore evidence.

[Miezhiko]

I understand. That's my initiative and there is no alternatives for now. But that's something alive right now.

[6r1d]

I understand. That's my initiative

Yes, you decide.

and there is no alternatives for now. But that's something alive right now.

Well, we have lots of good people with us. I think there are many things we can do.

[shenlebantongying]

The mission of this repo is completed. Bumping the number up is no longer impactful. The purpose is not to "fight over number" or "fighting between two parties". It's meaningless.

There's still little communication

No, there are shit ton of communication already. Besides, the message already spread to the whole community.

Further things don't have to initiate from this repo. Just wait for the next move of FSF.

Instead, we should stop accepting new signs as the open letter, so that we can do something else.

[6r1d]

The mission of this repo is completed. Bumping the number up is no longer impactful. The purpose is not to "fight over number" or "fighting between two parties". It's meaningless.

Huh, you have an interesting point. And you already told me something along the lines before.

Further things don't have to initiate from this repo. Just wait for the next move of FSF.

Makes sense.

Instead, we should stop accepting new signs as the open letter, so that we can do something else.

Honestly, it feels like a good idea to me, too.

[nukeop]

Further things don't have to initiate from this repo. Just wait for the next move of FSF.

Instead, we should stop accepting new signs as the open letter, so that we can do something else.

Yes, I was thinking of closing the letter tomorrow, after merging the last batch of signatures from codeberg etc. Mission accomplished.

[franpoli]

Unlike our opponents, as we close the letter, we should make a brief statement about our achievement. It would be good to end this action with an encouragement and unifying message.

[Tw1ddle]

Once signatures are no longer accepted, adding a closing statement above the letter that suggests other ways to provide support (e.g. making FSF donations or membership) could be constructive.

[shenlebantongying]

Maybe this thing on top of README?

[kchanqvq]

I have suggestion: let close all our opensource projects (sorry in advance)

I thought about another idea: relicense on our projects under a license that explicitly disallow or create trouble for MegaCorps. I think to do that, we just need such a clause: "You're free to use, reproduce or modify the software by any means, but any such usage is illegal" or so. It will be easy for anonymous hackers to develop and use such projects, but almost completely impossible for MegaCorps.

I don't know enough law to work out the full details. Any thoughts?

[6r1d]

I don't know enough law to work out the full details. Any thoughts?

While RMS was causing enough trouble for the corporations, I am not sure how much luck was involved. Your approach will expand legal battles and we aren't an army of lawyers at the end of the day. I'm not sure if those are good or bad, though. If they'll allow to attract more attention to many real problems in software industry, so be it.

At this point, many of us had a wakeup call: seeing how many people or bots prevent important information from spreading was weird. Seeing how biased platforms are is weird, as well.

There are several routes we can take. One I would propose is to educate people. Not on RMS (who is very important), but more generally, how to start actually looking at evidence, how to treat evidence (critical thinking), gather enough of it, how to make theories from it (which is a tedious process people often replace with borrowed views called scientific method). If people knew even a part of it, none of what happened would happen. I hope.

And I hope we'll remain as a community to write code and react on weird stuff, too.

[shenlebantongying]

One I would propose is to educate people.

In theory, we can get world peace by doing that :)

[nukeop]

I thought about another idea: relicense on our projects under a license that explicitly disallow or create trouble for MegaCorps.

It's called GPLv3 and AGPLv3.

[6r1d]

In theory, we can get world peace by doing that :)

I know it won't help immediately. But it'll help gradually. A tiny bit. Ish. We don't have a "fixus everythingus" spell, sadly.

[githubisnonfree]

Further things don't have to initiate from this repo. Just wait for the next move of FSF. Instead, we should stop accepting new signs as the open letter, so that we can do something else.

Yes, I was thinking of closing the letter tomorrow, after merging the last batch of signatures from codeberg etc. Mission accomplished.

nukeop:

I think we should keep the petition going. Why settle for a lesser win?

Let's keep winning, forever. Keep the petition going!

[shenlebantongying]

It seems we can only get very limited new signs this week.

[Miezhiko]

I don't want to play this game if you think that "we win". It's not a war and we have lost already, and it's not a game. FSF has lost support from many corporations and we are also "badly highlighted". (many of you don't care but I care, I personally has lost several friendly people already). You can also see that FSF has lost several important people who are not willing to work inside This anymore, you sure can still support FSF but people who was working many years and now reasonably leave will miss this support and there is no way back.

This letter was helping, hope giving, supporting and it's good thing. I agree with idea that it will be reasonable now to stop collecting signs/numbers because it was made visible already, corporations doesn't care (unless in bad way), community have seen that they are not alone and it will be smart to stop playing numbers.

Personally if there will be other movements against cancelling people for their views, gender, skin color (or whatever) - I'd be happy to join those (most likely) but it's not related to this repository. imho.

[shenlebantongying]

How about we keep it open until the end of Debian's vote? https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002

The proposal E is signing us and F is go against the open letter.

Saturday 2021-04-17 23:59:59 UTC

[appetrosyan]

(many of you don't care but I care, I personally has lost several friendly people already)

Wouldn't be too worried. They didn't care enough about you to give you a second chance and jumped to the conclusion that you're transphobic, and agreed to everything else said about RMS, without doing their own research.

I don't want to play this game if you think that "we win".

The split was already there before the open letter. People thought that way. People jumped to conclusions.

You may have lost some friends in the process, but I'd argue you'd lose them over something else later on. Better now than later. The FSF isn't any worse than it was just before the open letter, it just revealed certain things.

[nukeop]

Let's keep winning, forever. Keep the petition going!

I think there isn't much to be gained by letting it drag on. We have demonstrated what we came here to do. Soon it will be the time to switch targets.

[githubisnonfree]

nukeop, then how about leave it open until the end of the Debian vote?

Some other people have suggested that aswell. I think it's a reasonable end time. Ending the petition now would be too early, I think.

EDIT: to be clear, on the Debian vote it seems that there is a proposition where Debian project endorses our pro-RMS petition. That's why I and a few people think it should be left open for now; wait and see what Debian does. Debian is an important project.

[skirpichev]

@nukeop, I urge you wait a little till the end of the Debian vote. There is a little chance, that the project will sign our letter, yet it is. Moreover, some DD's privately told me that they are ready to leave the project, like me, and join to your letter in case something like the "choice 1" will win. Don't close the door!

[nukeop]

nukeop, then how about leave it open until the end of the Debian vote?

We had a discussion with the team and we're ok with leaving it open until then. We're not expecting more than ~6-6.5k signatures in any event (which is already a huge success).

[skirpichev]

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 04:04:50AM -0700, nukeop wrote:

We're not expecting more than ~6-6.5k signatures in any event (which is already a huge success).

The point was: you didn't announce the deadline. That's why debian people include this letter in the vote, for example.

I think, given we know when voting period ends - now it's a good time to provide some deadline. Say "end of vote + 1 week".

[githubisnonfree]

nukeop, so I suggest leaving the letter open for 5 additional days after the debian vote is announced.

I have a feeling that they might be supportive of us. It's worth waiting.

[basilean]

Hello community, Please keep this letter open, as me, many people will get news on late and will find this place comfortable sharing the feeling.

Personally, I think to exclude Stallman from FSF is like to exclude Trotski from Communist party and we all know how the Soviet Union ended.

Its pretty clear that corporation lackeys are producing this fracture, its not just about software, its far deeper.

Thank you very much for this place, make you feel that community is alive and the sense of solidarity still burns.

[cmpunches]

The mission of this repo is completed. Bumping the number up is no longer impactful. The purpose is not to "fight over number" or "fighting between two parties". It's meaningless.

No it is absolutely not completed.

You need at least 10k signatures to beat this forever.

If you close the repo before reaching 10k signatures your adversaries will suppress and mitigate the existence of this in the public narrative, and effectively waste all of your effort. They are trained PR professionals and there will be subsequent efforts. Crush 'em with this.

[majestrate]

I think that the profound success of the support letter being able to scale submissions compared to the open letter who have collapsed from an impractical project management structure says everything that needs to be said. This project here is a well oiled machine and the open letter seems to have ceased operation for the most part.

It's also quite regrettable that so many prominent project leads opposed the community will at large, it really shows how either blatantly out of touch they are with their demographics or how pervasive the corporate influence is.

[6r1d]

Please keep this letter open, as me, many people will get news on late and will find this place comfortable sharing the feeling. No it is absolutely not completed.

Yes, there's a very high possibility the letter will stay open. :-)

This project here is a well oiled machine and the open letter seems to have ceased operation for the most part.

Bryan Lunduke intends to communicate with open letter people. Not as a signer, but on his own behalf. Maybe future is brighter: he's well-known.

Let's watch how it happens and support him in comments while he's telling about the progress.

[nukeop]

We will keep the letter open indefinitely because of Richard Stallman's request I received by email:

Please don't close it to signatures.

If you assume that "the whole community has seen it," that conclusion
would follow.  But there is no "whole community" and news does not
spread that fast.

New people will continue to hear about it and some will sign.  If 100
people per month sign, it will be good to have those signatures.

[Shamar]

Hi guys, sorry for joining this discussion a bit late, but I was occupied on other fronts.

I agree that fighting over numbers is pointless and that closing the letter after Debian's is a good idea even just because otherwise the attackers might argue that the comparison with their failure is unfair.

Also note that they closed the harrassing letter after several people removed their own signatures and after having to retract several lies in their appendix to reduce legal risk for the signers (defamation is a crime in many countries).

IMHO, if there something I feel we should celebrate as a win, it's not numbers but these two facts.

Sure, all of this uncovered a huge issue in Free Software: the embrace of BigTech is a deadly one. It's marginalizing Free Software hackers and corrupting and colonizing (even remotely) successful projects with the Open Source rhetorics.

I think we should really do something about that.

relicense on our projects under a license that explicitly disallow or create trouble for MegaCorps.

Your approach will expand legal battles and we aren't an army of lawyers at the end of the day. I'm not sure if those are good or bad, though. If they'll allow to attract more attention to many real problems in software industry, so be it.

I'm personally working on this since years with the Hacking License (still work in progress) whose goal is to become the strongest possible copyleft with the widest reach and strongest reciprocity, so that nobody could adopt embrace, extend and extinguish tactics or prevent self-hosting.

Another interesting approach is the Cryptographic Autonomy License, but since it doesn't share copyright and patents with other users that respect the license, I still think we can do better.

The goal is not to prevent any use, but to prevent all abuses that corporations do to Free Software.

Just like this letter did, we just need to realize we have to defend Free Software projects from predators that "shall do no evil".

I think this is a debate we should have. (arguably not here on GitHub)

If you are interested, feel free to contact me.

[skirpichev]

The goal is not to prevent any use, but to prevent all abuses that corporations do to Free Software.

Sorry, you can't. It's capitalism.

[Shamar]

You wrote:

Sorry, you can't. It's capitalism.

But I read:

Sorry, you can't. He's the Pharaoh.

There is no greater victory for an oppressor, than the oppressed believing they cannot beat the oppressing system.

[Shamar]

We will keep the letter open indefinitely because of Richard Stallman's request

Sorry @nukeop, I had missed that post before. Fine, I trust RMS's perspective on this.

[skirpichev]

But I read

@Shamar, you should read literally.

There is no greater victory for an oppressor, than the oppressed believing they cannot beat the oppressing system.

Software market is a very tiny part of that system. And not a critical one, unless you can eat bytes.

RMS started the FOSS movement as a something independent on politics or economical system. Maybe, it's a good time to admit that he was wrong. While FOSS can provide proofs of its vitality in the current world (mostly, capitalistic) - it is designed not for this world.

PS: Sorry for off-topic. Probably, this should be discussed somewhere else.

[githubisnonfree]

btw i'm sure you know, stallman.org now links to stallmansupport.org which links to the petition

i suggest keeping the petition going for at least a few more weeks, if not longer

this battle isn't over. i think the anti-rms crowd is planning something. i can't prove that, but it's a gut feeling.

EDIT:

sorry, just read the message from nukeop that RMS requested the petition be left open.

yes, leave it open forever :)

[6r1d]

@Shamar, thank you for a big work related to GCC steering commitee discussion. It matters quite a bit and I agree with your points.

If you are interested, feel free to contact me.

I am certainly interested. Don't be surprised by an email. :-)

[CarlosEkisde]

Now it's time to start donating. To win this, or to survive. We need to put all the effort we can. Big Tech is perverting free software projects for putting them at the service of their evil purposes. They fear RMS and FSF because they remind us that beyond the scope of creating software with the maximum technical capabilities, exists the right of the user to be free. And this definitely clashes with what they want in the future for us.

[emestee]

I agree that fighting over numbers is pointless and that closing the letter after Debian's is a good idea even just because otherwise the attackers might argue that the comparison with their failure is unfair.

One could argue that the opposing letter closed for signatures after realizing that they're looking at a defeat.

I think we should really do something about that.

There are several principles that I can think of that can be contemplated, but would certainly rile people up.

1. Any individual in a voting or directorship role in any public organization such as the FSF or the GCC SC who is also employed by a large corporation is an automatic conflict of interest. There are no ifs and buts. At the very least such individuals should affirm in public that their views and opinions are their own, and that they understand it would be a breach of trust for them to use their position in any manner to advocate the political, commercial and technological interests of their employer (cough systemd cough)
2. Outside of the narrow scope of interests of digital liberties, copyright and online censorship, public projects should not take stances on political issues, because doing so divides the contributors and attracts angry mobs. It follows that public projects can not spare their resources to execute political advocacy on behalf of others, e.g. it is not appropriate for the GNU Project to advocate for or against guns, abortions, drug legalization, illegal immigration, taxation and so on, as none of those issues pertain to free software. Members should be free to do so on their own time, without fear of retribution, as is their right, which means the orwellian codes of conduct must go.
3. Similarly, it is not appropriate for public projects to devote their resources to activism that is unrelated to the narrow scope of interests, which means public projects should not engage in any sort of diversity initiatives, sponsor events that have political colors (as FSF did with SeaGL 2020, which hosted der.hans, Hashman, Nicholson, de Blanc, McGovern and Brasseur, all of whom are now mounting an assault on FSF - yes, these people are all in the same conference boat), or signal any support for any unrelated political movements, regardless of these movements' virtues or goals.
4. The value of meritocracy, or more specifically technocracy, must be reemphasized, in that contributions are judged solely on their merit, and not on any individual attributes of their authors, ranging from color of skin to political views and twitter feed contents.

Organizations such as FSF need to develop an immunity from outside influences, whether those are governments, corporations with business interests or political activists who want to exploit the work of others to advance their agendas.

[6r1d]

One could argue that the opposing letter closed for signatures after realizing that they're looking at a defeat.

Well, let them enjoy counting the big names (who are probably misled quite often)

cough systemd cough

Cough indeed!

Any individual in a voting or directorship role in any public organization such as the FSF or the GCC SC who is also employed by a large corporation is an automatic conflict of interest

Current GCC steering commitee has quite a few of non-corporate names. It seems like a perfect group to decide a fate of the most used (and useful) compiler! ;-)

which means the orwellian codes of conduct must go

All codes of conduct should. I already saw some discussion where someone told those are the rules to ban people for. Guess they enjoy too many people who are eager to contribute. Does GitHub require code of conduct for donations? If such hooks are everywhere, they have to go. Or better alternative platforms will appear.

Similarly, it is not appropriate for public projects to devote their resources to activism that is unrelated to the narrow scope of interests

...Or the software will stagnate.

The value of meritocracy, or more specifically technocracy, must be reemphasized

Good idea

immunity from outside influences, a

That was rather abrupt. Is everything good?

[emestee]

I accidentally pressed S-Enter, I edited the last sentence after that.

[Aspie96]

I am of the strong opinion that the initiative should be closed. This is for a few reasons:

1) We are not getting that many signatures. 2) By closing the letter we can announce a defenitive result with clear numbers 3) In the long run the two letters will no longer be comparable. If the other letter is closed and this one isn't, new votes will mean nothing. Of course we only will be getting votes, but it will no longer be a response to the other letter. 4) There could be future controversies about Stallman, or anyone else. I think this letter should only be referring to the current situation as a response to the open letter. This is better rapresented if the letter is closed soon. 5) We will no longer need to advocate about this letter, specifically. There are clear result, an exact number of signatures for both letters and a response from the Foundation: we won

Note that: 1) As of now, the two letters are comparable. It's true, we kept it open longer, but it's ok. They closed it because they were getting fewer signatures. Today, even including the signatures they added after closing the letter, they have fewer signatures than we had the day they closed the letter. This is significant. Also, if you look at the GitHub stars (which are NOT a formal way of voting and should not be. We should not call for stars in order to keep this symmetrical) it's clear which letter is preferred by the community. But we should not keep it open too long or else we will not be able to announce a comparable result. 2) Of course the letter must remain open forever for those wishing to remove signatures. 3) If they open the letter agin we can too.

Note: I am aware that Stallman prefers keeping the letter open and I am openly disagreing with him

[Aspie96]

What we want to do in the future is to support the FSF by donating and asking others to donate and to support Free Software.

But the battle between this two letters should not continue. We won: it's now a useless race against a dead body.

[cmpunches]

3. In the long run the two letters will no longer be comparable. If the other letter is closed and this one isn't, new votes will mean nothing. Of course we only will be getting votes, but it will no longer be a response to the other letter.

@Aspie96 Strategically this doesn't make as much sense as it may seem to at first glance. There is some wisdom in avoiding a reactionary model in an adversarial situation. By tying the actions for our initiatives so tightly to the actions of the exclusionist camp, we inadvertantly put ourselves in the position of being controlled by an external actor; that is a situation easily exploitable by an adversary that allows new light (and shadows) to be painted on any movement made.

• it's clear which letter is preferred by the community. But we should not keep it open too long or else we will not be able to announce a comparable result.

We should treat the existence of the other letter as a separate issue entirely.

3. If they open the letter ag[a]in we can too.

Sure, but, bear in mind the exclusionist camp has paid PR teams and is a learning, adaptive organization and has a high level of (misguided) motivation. Even while we've been focused on this they have been trying to subvert its existence in the press so that they can recover enough from the blowback of a failed campaign to go for round 2. This was the easiest to counter of all of their efforts because it was their first action. The only solution is a comprehensive strategy of which this is one part, so, we need this to stay alive in perpetuity.

These actions on their part here were just the trumpets of war. From it, we learned their modes of operation, who was backing them, and what their end goal is. This is only just beginning for them.

[Aspie96]

@Aspie96 Strategically this doesn't make as much sense as it may seem to at first glance. There is some wisdom in avoiding a reactionary model in an adversarial situation. By tying the actions for our initiatives so tightly to the actions of the exclusionist camp, we inadvertantly put ourselves in the position of being controlled by an external actor.

This is a good point.

However, you have to consider this letter is simply a response to theirs. So our actions will be tied to theirs. And, more importantly, they are tied to this controversy, not any future one

It's true we have to think about our decisions, but I think after considering all factors we should close this letter soon. It would not have been wise to close it when they closed theirs beause they were already not receiving signaturse whyile we were still receiving many.

We should treat the existence of the other letter as a separate issue entirely.

I disagree.

I think this letter is clearly a response to the other letter, or at least by the movement which is represnted by it

The only solution is a comprehensive strategy of which this is one part, so, we need this to stay alive in perpetuity.

I do not think at all keeping it open is the best strategy. We can reopen it as soon as they do and I don't respect a different result if we act similarly.

Indeed, I think this is precisely a good reason to close the letter for two reasons: 1) I think opening it again (when needed, which is to say after they open it) and starting a new separate call for signatures actually could be more effective than keeping it open since it will be more noticible 2) If we keep the letter open those who haven't signed it yet and want to will. Imagine that then they open the other letter with a new successful call for signatures. Those who have signed our letter in the meanwhile will obviously not sign it again, but they will be people who would have been convinced later too, therefore if we keep it open it will actually be harder to have a strong and visible wave of new signatures. Will we have many more signatures in total? Yes. But they will claim those signatures mean nothing and do not represent what happened after their new call for signatures because indeed they will have gotten more signatures after the new call and be getting more signatures faster

[6r1d]

Reminder: this exists. Voting stops in less than an hour. There's a high chance Debian will stay neutral and some devs will join this letter.

• https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002
• https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/gr_rms/vote_detailed.html

---

Generally I don't have a strong personal opinion about opening or closing. I wanted to close it some time ago and I was wrong then: some interesting people joined only recently.

[Aspie96]

I am not suggesting closing it before Debian votes.

Indeed, I think closing ought to be announced (and at minimum it should have been after Debian's vote even if we could announce it to the past).

I am suggesting it should be closed in few days, defenitely not right now and surely not prior to Debian's vote.

Indeed closing it can actually get us a wave of signature making sure lazy people sign too

[cmpunches]

Indeed closing it can actually get us a wave of signature making sure lazy people sign too

So on that I agree. Even as far out as 90 days, the announcement of the signature window closing would be great marketing pressure to bring in another spike of signatories. I was hoping to see this reach 10k signatures before closing.

[cmpunches]

Look, regarding Debian, there are two entities at play here:

1) There's Debian the organization, which has clearly been hijacked by corporate interests using identity politics as a weapon to attack areas that those interests have declared as an existential enemy way before they became foss sponsors.

2) There's also the Debian community, which is going to have believers of the multiple "realities" at play there. Some of them are allies. Some of them are not.

That spike can only be expected from (2), and some of those people might be bullied out of declaring their positions before they can be attracted -- something both the Debian community and Gnome Foundation have developed well-earned reputations for.