Will OSI participate in any future events hosted on the MIT or Harvard campuses after these universities' complicity in helping Jeffrey Epstein avoid prosecution on federal racketeering charges for the sex-trafficking of minors was exposed by whistle-blowers?
Not sure why it would be appropriate to exclude Stallman from serving on the Board of the FSF while allowing Rafael Reif, for example, to remain president of MIT after sending a personally signed "thank-you note" to one of the most notorious alleged sex-traffickers and convicted child-rapists in US history:
Exactly, OSI is going to happily go to conferences at MIT and Harvard without mentioning anything about those institutions' multiple, documented actions to protect child rapists when they attend, but they will essentially do a social boycott of RMS because his comments were a bit rude.
The OSI symbolizes the takeover of the free software movement by corporate interests.
Without Stallman, Moglen, and the GPL, the open web would not have come into being.
Stallman still has the surest instinct on how best to move forward.
This statement comes across as a pure power play by the corporate interests: “We won, and we’re not ceding any power back to GNU or the FSF. We will destroy you first.”
This is not about Stallman’s actions or private opinions, which were blown far out of proportion during the witch hunt in 2019, which was obviously driven by ulterior motives.
Wow. It's nice to know where OSI stands. I feel that their response shows that OSI is an ideological organization, which does not believe in giving people second chances, does not investigates the details of the allegations and does not take into account the individual circumstances. Richard Stallman contribution to the Open Source Movement is hard to underestimate. I am really impressed with the courage that it took for the Free Software Foundation to reinstate him. Also wow for the FSF.
> Richard M. Stallman recently announced that he will be returning to the board of directors of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), a statement that the FSF has not denied
He's listed on fsf.org as being on the board so I don't know why they'd deny it.
> If we do not speak out against this, our silence may be misinterpreted as support.
I can't think of a group that does less than the FSF except for maybe OSI. Besides Stallman never left being the head of GNU and did OSI say anything about that?
This is a nothing statement from and almost nothing group.
This sucks. All over a few comments people didn't like (from a person who comments on the news publicly online every single day for the past 20+? years) about the scandal regarding Epstein and Minsky.
Stallman thinks both men are criminals and serial rapists, and yet, still the OSI thinks he's dangerous because he made an off-topic comment about what "assault" really means (off-topic because it does not lessen the illegality or the seriousness of the crimes).
Yes, Stallman has said that Epstein was a serial rapist.
But, where did you ever get the idea that he thought the same of Minsky? There is nothing like that in the CSAIL email chain. RMS was simply objecting to a protest announcement's use of the term "sexual assault" when the source the announcement's authors were using said "only that they had sex" (RMS' words). Actually, the source states, "Giuffre says she was directed to have sex with Minsky when he visited Epstein’s compound in the US Virgin Islands." RMS had no first hand knowledge of the event, and was naively engaging in his usual lawyerly precision. Here is the article RMS was discussing:
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535224 - March 2021 (814 comments)
[+] [-] selfishgene|5 years ago|reply
Not sure why it would be appropriate to exclude Stallman from serving on the Board of the FSF while allowing Rafael Reif, for example, to remain president of MIT after sending a personally signed "thank-you note" to one of the most notorious alleged sex-traffickers and convicted child-rapists in US history:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2020/01/12/after-epstei...
Nor would it be any more appropriate to allow Mr. Seth Lloyd back onto the MIT campus either:
https://thetech.com/2021/02/25/mit-administration-epstein-op...
What are the allegations against Stallman regarding the aiding and abetting of sex-trafficking and/or child rape?
[+] [-] notsureaboutpg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wrycoder|5 years ago|reply
The OSI symbolizes the takeover of the free software movement by corporate interests.
Without Stallman, Moglen, and the GPL, the open web would not have come into being.
Stallman still has the surest instinct on how best to move forward.
This statement comes across as a pure power play by the corporate interests: “We won, and we’re not ceding any power back to GNU or the FSF. We will destroy you first.”
This is not about Stallman’s actions or private opinions, which were blown far out of proportion during the witch hunt in 2019, which was obviously driven by ulterior motives.
[+] [-] g42gregory|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BFatts|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] quitspamming|5 years ago|reply
He's listed on fsf.org as being on the board so I don't know why they'd deny it.
> If we do not speak out against this, our silence may be misinterpreted as support.
I can't think of a group that does less than the FSF except for maybe OSI. Besides Stallman never left being the head of GNU and did OSI say anything about that?
This is a nothing statement from and almost nothing group.
[+] [-] notsureaboutpg|5 years ago|reply
Stallman thinks both men are criminals and serial rapists, and yet, still the OSI thinks he's dangerous because he made an off-topic comment about what "assault" really means (off-topic because it does not lessen the illegality or the seriousness of the crimes).
[+] [-] wrycoder|5 years ago|reply
But, where did you ever get the idea that he thought the same of Minsky? There is nothing like that in the CSAIL email chain. RMS was simply objecting to a protest announcement's use of the term "sexual assault" when the source the announcement's authors were using said "only that they had sex" (RMS' words). Actually, the source states, "Giuffre says she was directed to have sex with Minsky when he visited Epstein’s compound in the US Virgin Islands." RMS had no first hand knowledge of the event, and was naively engaging in his usual lawyerly precision. Here is the article RMS was discussing:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900
The evidence actually shows that Minsky rejected the woman's advances:
Eyewitness claims Minsky "turned her down":
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/
Minsky's wife denies that any sex took place, as she was with her husband at Epstein's place:
https://nypost.com/2019/08/09/jeffrey-epsteins-alleged-sex-s...