First, don’t listen to his opinions on anything that isn’t about comouters and software. He doesn’t have a good track record there.
Do pay attention to his takes on technology and freedom, there’s a lot of food for though there.
I was at one of his talks recently, and he’s definitely and eccentric fellow. When it comes to free software he’s a die hard extremist, and I have a feeling he knows and to a certain extent he does that on purpose. Case in point, he mentioned how he refused hearing aids and would similarly refuse a pacemaker as there are none running on free software.
As such, that’s how I take his ideas about free software: a good philosophy taken to the extreme to showcase what’d be possible if we went all in on that, and the dangers of not doing it. Definitely not something that can work for everyone, or a realistic pathway to a world of free software.
I do think, however, that someone like him is fundamental to advance the cause of free software, even if no one takes him literally and emulates his way of life.
I’m not gonna refuse a life saving treatment or device because it runs on propriety software, but I am willing to sacrifice some convenience to use a free software alternative when available.
I’m a woman, and have talked to him via email 2-3 times in the last 20 years. While I’ve met Torvalds, Jobs, and others in the industry when I was living in the Bay Area and working as a tech journalist, I never got to meet RMS – only via email. I think he has social issues, maybe he’s on the autistic side or something similar. I don’t think he understands clearly some of the things he’s saying when it comes to social stuff. He doesn’t get a pass, but at the same time, he’s a bit different as an individual, so that needs to be taken into account. When it comes to software, his heart is in the right place, and in fact, if it was me, I’d be even more strict (or more “Free” – depends how you see it), with GPL.
Politically, I don’t like him. He had a critical influence in the beginning of the Free Software movement, and its failure can be easily identified in the core ideas that put the freedom of the software before the freedom of the people. The fact he cared more about software than people is reflected in pretty much anything he did.
On a personal level, he seems an insufferable asshole with enough power to get away with toxic behavior. Luckily, I never had to interact with him, but his visibility for sure didn’t help marginalizing toxic egomaniacs in IT communities. Being neurodivergent is not an excuse for being an asshole. He’s the last remnant of an age that hopefully is over.
he was right about the computer stuff
Yeah, this is a good place to focus and stop. I don’t like the other stuff I’ve heard about him.
His comments about women are inexcusable, but the fact he convinced Linus to adopt GPL is paying dividends to billions of people globally, and most of us don’t know it.
What comments about women?
You have to separate:
- Stallman the person
- Stallman the programmer
- Stallman the philosopher
Net positive to the world by a lot.
His fight for software freedom was essential for shaping technology in the last couple of decades. Basically any software today is based on open source directly or indirectly.
Don’t listen to him about child psychology though
Smart guy. Not a good person. Don’t idolize people
Honestly it comes across to me not as him defending rapists, but actually just genuinely not understanding how rape works. The guy somehow understands people less than I do, and that’s saying something.
We’re talking about the creator of Emacs. Do you think that guy leaves his house.
That was my neighbor’s defense, too. “It wasn’t rape! She was very clearly coming onto me!” about the 14-year old girl he “”“encountered”“” as a college student.
He very absolutely understands what rape is. He just doesn’t want age to be a factor if she’s “into it”. It’s very very very very very clear where he stands: if she consents, it’s not rape, no matter her age!
Nobody is even accusing him of rape. Why treat him like a rapist when nobody has suggested the possibility that he had done anything wrong besides stick his foot in his mouth? It seems obvious to me that the point he was poorly attempting to make was that he’s uncomfortable with the inconsistencies around age of consent in different countries, not that there should be no such thing. 17 is enough to be a consenting adult in some actual reasonable countries.
No one is accusing him of rape. Just saying his view on the whole thing is sketch as fuck.
17 is enough to be a consenting adult in some actual reasonable countries.
…okay.
