Examining closely the so called “rms-open-letter” Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in the free software community for a long time. Yes. He’s been a dangerous force – to proprietary software. Jokes aside, this sentence itself presents a bold claim, and one that I’d expect the letter to back up with strong evidence. Let’s see. He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety. Okay. Again, a bold claim. I’m expecting sources to back it up. Now, it says among other serious accusations of impropriety. Now, how does being accused of something make it a crime? This is a seriously flawed concept. These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities. Really. Let’s say he is all that he is claimed to be. A “misogynist, ableist, and transphobic.” The “Free” in Free Software is “Free” as in Freedom. The first amendment to the US Constitution mentions freedom of speech. It’s a fundamental freedom. There’s nothing wrong with having beliefs and speaking freely about them. You might argue that these beliefs are inherently wrong. Believing that is your right. What is wrong is when you infringe on the freedoms of others. This is the core concept of the GPL and Free Software. With his recent reinstatement to the Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation, we call for the entire Board of the FSF to step down and for RMS to be removed from all leadership positions. Wow. That’s a purge. Like what Stalin did. And it’s an overreaction. There is zero evidence to back this up. We, the undersigned, believe in the necessity of digital autonomy and the powerful role user freedom plays in protecting our fundamental human rights. Is RMS not a user? This contradicts the earlier infringement on RMS’s freedom of speech. In order to realize the promise of everything software freedom makes possible, there must be radical change within the community. Linking statement – doesn’t really work, because there’s no evidence to link to the claim. We believe in a present and a future where all technology empowers – not oppresses – people. Another contradiction. The exigence of this letter is to oppress one specific individual. We know that this is only possible in a world where technology is built to pay respect to our rights at its most foundational levels. While these ideas have been popularized in some form by Richard M. Stallman, he does not speak for us. These ideas have been essentially created by Richard Stallman. This is literally the entire point of the FSF. We do not condone his actions and opinions. This extremely vague statement represents a contradiction with the previous line. It’s quite obvious that one of Stallman’s opinions is that proprietary software is bad. By saying you disagree via a blanket statement, you contradict yourself. We do not acknowledge his leadership or the leadership of the Free Software Foundation as it stands today. That’s within your rights. There has been enough tolerance of RMS’s repugnant ideas and behavior. Being specific is important here. Look two lines up. We cannot continue to let one person ruin the meaning of our work. Sure. But the one person in question is the reason why you have work to protect. Our communities have no space for people like Richard M. Stallman, and we will not continue suffering his behavior, giving him a leadership role, or otherwise holding him and his hurtful and dangerous ideology as acceptable. He is entitled to his opinions, as you are to yours. And so far, no evidence has been presented to show that Stallman actually has the ideology you claim he does. We are calling for the removal of the entire Board of the Free Software Foundation. Interesting. There would have to be substantial evidence against each member. Otherwise, this amounts to a purge, using “guilt” by association. These are people who have enabled and empowered RMS for years. Really. I don’t think this is the case. Ian Kelling joined the FSF in 2017. RMS left in 2019. Two years? Yeah. “years” means more than one. Now, how have they “enabled and empowered RMS?” Any evidence? They demonstrate this again by permitting him to rejoin the FSF Board. It is time for RMS to step back from the free software, tech ethics, digital rights, and tech communities, for he cannot provide the leadership we need. Perhaps they just recognized that he does have use, just as Apple wanted Jobs back. We are also calling for Richard M. Stallman to be removed from all leadership positions, including the GNU Project. As of yet, there has been zero evidence, apart from bold claims sans supporting evidence. We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software Foundation. Again, you are within your rights to do this. Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS. Good luck. You’re going to stop contributing to every GNU project ever. Go ahead. Linux is under the GPL. RMS wrote the GPL. This is absurd. Pretty much every software project has some relation to the FSF or the GNU project (and therefore Richard Stallman). Do not speak at or attend FSF events, or events that welcome RMS and his brand of intolerance. I’ll point out that there has been zero evidence as of yet to support RMS’s intolerance. We ask for contributors to free software projects to take a stand against bigotry and hate within their projects. While doing these things, tell these communities and the FSF why. We have detailed several public incidents of RMS’s behavior. Yay! Finally! A link to some sources?! Nope, it’s an appendix. More on that later. Some of us have our own stories about RMS and our interactions with him, things that are not captured in email threads or on video. We hope you will read what has been shared and consider the harm that he has done to our community and others. Okay. Two parts. One: We have evidence but we’re not telling you. Two: We hope you will read it (how?) and see that he’s bad. And now for the appendix: RMS has a history of mistreating women and making them feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and unwelcome. For incidents relating to RMS and MIT, please see 0. Okay. 0 is a link to an article. The article mentions a single quote from RMS: “I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.” And it presents this as evidence that he’s dangerous?! How? This quote makes perfect sense: If it’s non-consensual, it’s rape. If it’s consensual, it’s not. Now, when you remove this from the context and try to quote him, you can do anything with it. I can take the quote, “I don’t think RMS is stupid” and turn that into “I … think RMS is stupid.” RMS’s views on rape and child sex laws were publicly discussed in the Fall of 2019, when Selam G wrote about them.1 Especially chilling is when Stallman addresses the accusations that Marvin Minsky sexually assaulted one of Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking victims (Virginia Giuffre) by saying “but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.”2 RMS decries that this is not “sexual assault” because “‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence” while the report being discussed “says no such thing. Only that they had sex.”3 Rather than discussing this further, let’s instead focus on his personal web site, where he also shares his views on minors being “entirely willing.”4 (Note: While several news reports misrepresented Stallman’s position while discussing allegations against Minsky, Stallman has previously expressed opinions that were consistent with the inaccurate portrayal.) The quote “but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing” actually has context. People explode, and they parse it incorrectly. The correct meaning extracted from the quote: Epstein probably threatened her or someone else, in such a way as to coerce her to give the pretense of willingness to Minsky. The assertion that “sexual assault” requires force falls under the same banner. To quote the definition: Sexual assault is an act in which a person intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will. So then Stallman’s assertion makes sense. Minsky did not do the coercion, that was Epstein. Because of the coercion, there was no physical force involved. Thus, it is not Sexual Assault. And now, look at the bold parts of the quote. “Presented” is changed to “Being.” There’s a change of meaning there. He regularly and repeatedly makes comments about “the dishonest law that labels sex with adolescents as ‘rape’ even if they are willing.”5 He compares United States law to Sudanese law in saying that “US laws that define ‘rape’ to include voluntary sex with under N years of age (where N varies)” and that “both laws falsify the meaning of ‘rape.’”6 Some context for my viewpoint: I have just graduated from high school. I don’t think it’s rape if minors/adolescents have sex. People do it consensually all the time. It’s a part of life for high school (and sometimes junior high school) children. Of a woman having sex with a minor, he said “I wish an attractive woman had ‘abused’ me that way when I was 14.” This part is extremely confusing. Yes, many 14 year old boys do wish for such things. Not that it makes it right, but hey, it happens. He directly addressed child pornography by saying that “making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos.” This actually makes sense. The alternative is this: If I make such a photo, and email it to you, and your mail client fetches it, both you and I are now guilty. He defended pedophilia, in general, in saying that “there is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.” (Note: RMS apologized for this comment on 14 September, 2019. Edit made: 24 March, 2021 - 08:50 EDT.) This part is extremely confusing. He did apologize. And that’s not defending pedophilia, that’s being a social gadfly. In 2015 and 2016 RMS made three posts on his website about Down’s syndrome. He recommended that, should someone find out they are pregnant and the child tests positive for Down’s syndrome “the right course of action for the woman is to terminate the pregnancy.” He referred to people deciding to “carry fetuses with Down’s syndrome to term” as “perverse” and said that there is “nothing virtuous” in “[increasing] the number of people that have Down’s syndrome.” He also said that “when a fetus has Down’s syndrome, you should abort it and try again.” On at least one occasion RMS likened having a child with Down’s syndrome to having a pet. (Note: Link 14 added 25 March, 2021 - 11:33 EDT.) Sure. He has his opinions. And he didn’t use “perverse” to refer to the people carrying the fetuses, but to the fetuses. RMS has spent years on a campaign against using people’s correct pronouns. This is poorly disguised transphobia. In the original publication of the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines, he said “there are various ways to express gender neutrality in third-person singular pronouns in English; you do not have to use ‘they.’” This text has since been updated, but is still transphobic. The main page on his web site includes the statement that “‘They’ is plural — for singular antecedents, use singular gender-neutral pronouns.” It’s true that you don’t have to use “they.” It’s not a part of grammatically correct traditional English, for the sole reason that for the longest time, it was unacceptable to not identify as male of female. Also see here.