@danielst Elaborating a bit...

The removal of RMS from MIT and the FSF was sad, but necessary. RMS is the single most critical person in Free Software, but when a person is in this kind of power, they have more responsibility to use measured words, especially in public.

RMS's behavior has been problematic for *years*, and I've privately had conversations with him about it. Many of us have, because we didn't want it to get to this point.

(...)

@danielst I've seen him kiss women's hands without prompting, continue to hit on women even once they expressed disinterest (even women where they were obligated to be there by job).

I've seen him be uncaring and even (unthinkingly) cruel to wait staff.

I tried talking to him about these actions. I also talked to him about his views regarding consent and minors back in 2001.

None of these seem to have worked and the behavior continued.

(...)

@danielst And while his point about the term "assult" may be intellectually debatable, the insensivity of bringing it up at all is not excusable. Even if it were- no apology has been offered.

So organizations must do the right thing, and they did.

As for Conservancy... Conservancy is *the most important organization in Free Software today*, period. They're more important than the FSF or the FSFE. They fight for Free Software and support Free Software in ways no one else does right now.

(...)

@danielst Conservancy's value to Free Software is why we did an episode with @o0karen0o on @librelounge, and it's their commitment to Free Software that attracted @freedeb, who we also had on. I stand firmly by Conservancy.

The "In Defense" article is full of half and un-truths, and where it does say the truth, it misses the point. Free Software absolutely depended on RMS, but we as a movement are not dependent on one person. We are and must be more than that.

@emacsen @o0karen0o@mastodon.technology @librelounge @freedeb
I don't like that b/w thinking. In his latest interview RMS stated he never saw MS as the evil corp, he just criticizes certain practices. Likewise the SFC can be criticized for an action without minimizing its importance. Neither RMS nor the SFC are above rebuke. The problem is not rebuke, but the style and misrepresentation of facts and defending such misrepresentation by adding auxiliary accusations instead of judging them separate as RMS does.

@emacsen @librelounge @o0karen0o @danielst

I stand firmly for Conservancy

It worth noting, that #SFC would hardly attract that critics, if the authors of the disowning statement were brave enough to sign it with their names instead of hiding under organisation’s cloak.

@emacsen @danielst

no apology has been offered [by #rms]

An apology to whom, may I ask? To the eavesdropper girl — Selamie Gano or whatever is her name? Or to the yellow press that garbled his words?

Do not you think, that it them who owe Dr. Stallman an apology first?

@z don't bother, they're not gonna understand these things.