transparency and succession

Daniel Pocock daniel at
Mon Sep 30 22:12:47 BST 2019

On 30/09/2019 23:03, Christopher Waid wrote:

> more in tune with the ideologies expressed and beyond. The FSF has been
> co-opted by people on the left to do things it shouldn't be doing. RMS
> has always ensured it was a fairly neutral organization specific to
> software freedom where all were welcome. The software freedom
> conservancy and select other people in the community have been working
> to change that. I'm friendly with people on the left, but I'm not
> forgiving of there efforts to co-opt the organization for unrelated
> social agendas of the left.
> It is one thing for Bradley Kuhn and Karen Sandler to go in that
> direction with there own organizations if that is what they want to do,
> but it's wrong for those that have attempted to co-opt an organization
> founded by another.

To call those people "the left" is a big generalization

Consider nuclear power: there are people who consider themselves to be
on the left and see nuclear power as a positive solution because it
reduces emissions and creates lots of jobs too.  Other people who also
consider themselves in the left are opposed to nuclear power because of
mining hazards, accidents, waste and military consequences.  Which group
is more left?

There are people in the left who really have talent and do work.  There
are also people who simply use their interpretation of left-wing
ideology to justify why they don't work and why other people should pay
more taxes to support them.  Is that the type of toxic person who is now
trying to control free software?



More information about the Discussion mailing list