Alexander Wirt

>Why do you believe the FSF and MIT didn't investigate? Many people have called this the straw that broke the camel's back. To be honest? If they had, I'd have expected an official rebuttal, and a call for either calm, or a full retraction. Since neither has happened, I see it as a duty to dig up, and try to propagate the facts as far as possible. To that end a compilation of accusations, rebuttals, and sources follow. Specifically, Stallman has been accused of (1) Defending Jeffrey Epstein (while in reality Stallman was defending Marvin Minsky); (2) Describing Epstein's victims as entirely willing (while in reality Stallman was arguing that one specific victim of Epstein, Virginia Giuffre, was presented to Minsky as entirely willing because she was coerced by Epstein, not that she was entirely willing); (3) Defendinf pedophilia (while in reality Stallman was arguing that age doesn't matter in a case of rape because rape is always a terrible act no matter the age of the victim); (4) Defending pedophilia in the past (while in reality Stallman already countered his controversial claim from 2006 -in which he expressed skepticism in case of consensual sex- with a comment in 2013, where he said that children can't really be consensual); (5) Condoned sexual assault (while in reality Stallman was arguing that the term "sexual assault" does not fit the description of Minsky's act towards Virginia Giuffre since she wasn't assaulted by Minsky but coerced by Epstein; Stallman…

Not unexpected, but I'm surprised it happened so soon after he resigned from MIT/CSAIL. Earlier today the director of the GNOME Foundation requested that RMS resign from the FSF, and said severing ties with the FSF could happen if he didn't step down. https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relationship-gnu-fs…

Could someone please make a comprehensive list of the people and media accusing him of misconduct? It's time to start keeping track of them and being aware of their toxic characters every time we're dealing with them in some way. First on the list: This guy: https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relationship-gnu-fs…

> If he wanted to defend himself, he would have stayed and fought, let himself get fired, file a lawsuit. But he resigned, willingly. Or possibly, because both the SFC [1] and the head of the GNOME foundation [2] said that they would find it unacceptable to work with the FSF as long as Stallman was still the leader, he realized there was no way staying on would be possible. [1] https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-speak-for-us/ [2] https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relationship-gnu-fs…

Has there been updates on the legal situation since http://blog.halon.org.uk/2016/01/on-zfs-in-debian/? I am obviously glad that this happened, but afraid of an Oraclocalypse.

That's the position the Debian project is taking. They're planning to provide a package that builds locally on the users system.[1] [1] http://blog.halon.org.uk/2016/01/on-zfs-in-debian/

The article states that Debian does this, and gives a link: http://blog.halon.org.uk/2016/01/on-zfs-in-debian/

For those who missed it, Debian Project Leader Neil McGovern gives details [1] about how licensing issues were resolved so that ZFS can be in Debian now. It is distributed as source-only dkms module. [1]: http://blog.halon.org.uk/2016/01/on-zfs-in-debian/

I read this on planet debian a couple of days ago: http://blog.halon.org.uk/2014/11/barbie-the-debian-developer/?utm_sour… Barbie debian developer + systemD. Wins hands down!

> You're going to need to explain that more clearly. I think you are intelligent enough to understand it on your own. BTW, I know asking question is good, but sometimes try to answer other people's questions, it's good too! > When there's no other public evidence available, what do you want me to do? So we can safely assume he did not do anything you say, he's innocent until proven guilty, like any of us, right? > It really wasn't. It really was. I'm with Joshua Gay (former employee of the FSF Licensing & Compliance Team) on this: It is not clear to me that there is any contradiction between the SFLC statement and the FSF’s statement on the matter of Linux and ZFS. That is, I can’t really find how the SFLC and FSF differ in their interpretation GPLv2 and CDDL. The complete comment can be found here https://blog.halon.org.uk/2017/11/software-freedom-law-center-and-cons… >> Is this enough to fire people? > Evidently That's why it is bad, if it wasn't evident. FSF should not act as evil corporations do.