Talk:Richard Stallman

Splitting up this section: Decline of MIT hacker culture

1. I was researching something else (history of text editors), and ran across this portion of the article. There are some deficiencies I'd like to correct; in particular, as mentioned by Gronky above, the section-title is misleading ("decline" is not an NPOV word-choice). Below is the current content of the sections in question, as of 2013-09-09. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

[Section -- Early Years] ... As a first-year student at Harvard University, Stallman was known for his strong performance in Math 55. In 1971 he became a programmer at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, and became a regular in the hacker community, where he was usually known by his initials, rms (which was the name of his computer accounts). Stallman graduated from Harvard magna cum laude earning an AB in Physics in 1974.

Stallman enrolled as a graduate student at MIT, but then ended his pursuit of a doctorate in physics to focus on his programming at the MIT AI Laboratory.

While a graduate student at MIT, Stallman published a paper with Gerald Jay Sussman on an AI truth maintenance system, called dependency-directed backtracking. This paper was an early work on the problem of intelligent backtracking in constraint satisfaction problems. As of 2003, the technique Stallman and Sussman introduced is still the most general and powerful form of intelligent backtracking. The technique of constraint recording, wherein partial results of a search are recorded for later reuse, was also introduced in this paper.

As a hacker in MIT's AI laboratory, Stallman worked on software projects such as TECO, Emacs, and the Lisp machine operating system. He would become an ardent critic of restricted computer access in the lab, which at that time was funded primarily by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. When MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science (LCS) installed a password control system in 1977, Stallman found a way to decrypt the passwords and sent users messages containing their decoded password, with a suggestion to change it to the empty string (that is, no password) instead, to re-enable anonymous access to the systems. Around 20% of the users followed his advice at the time, although passwords ultimately prevailed. Stallman boasted of the success of his campaign for many years afterward.

[Section] Decline of MIT hacker culture.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the hacker culture that Stallman thrived on began to fragment. To prevent software from being used on their competitors' computers, most manufacturers stopped distributing source code and began using copyright and restrictive software licenses to limit or prohibit copying and redistribution. Such proprietary software had existed before, and it became apparent that it would become the norm. This shift in the legal characteristics of software can be regarded as a consequence triggered by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, as stated by Stallman's MIT fellow Brewster Kahle.

When Brian Reid in 1979 placed time bombs in the Scribe markup language and word processing system to restrict unlicensed access to the software, Stallman proclaimed it "a crime against humanity." He clarified, years later, that it is blocking the user's freedom that he believes is a crime, not the issue of charging for the software.

In 1980, Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were refused access to the source code for the software of a newly installed laser printer, the Xerox 9700. Stallman had modified the software for the Lab's previous laser printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users waiting for print jobs if the printer was jammed. Not being able to add these features to the new printer was a major inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This experience convinced Stallman of people's need to be free to modify the software they use.

Richard Greenblatt, a fellow AI Lab hacker, founded Lisp Machines, Inc. (LMI) to market Lisp machines, which he and Tom Knight designed at the lab. Greenblatt rejected outside investment, believing that the proceeds from the construction and sale of a few machines could be profitably reinvested in the growth of the company. In contrast, the other hackers felt that the venture capital-funded approach was better. As no agreement could be reached, hackers from the latter camp founded Symbolics, with the aid of Russ Noftsker, an AI Lab administrator. Symbolics recruited most of the remaining hackers including notable hacker Bill Gosper, who then left the AI Lab. Symbolics also forced Greenblatt to resign by citing MIT policies. While both companies delivered proprietary software, Stallman believed that LMI, unlike Symbolics, had tried to avoid hurting the lab's community. For two years, from 1982 to the end of 1983, Stallman worked by himself to clone the output of the Symbolics programmers, with the aim of preventing them from gaining a monopoly on the lab's computers.

Stallman argues that software users should have the freedom to share with their neighbor and to be able to study and make changes to the software that they use. He maintains that attempts by proprietary software vendors to prohibit these acts are antisocial and unethical. The phrase "software wants to be free" is often incorrectly attributed to him, and Stallman argues that this is a misstatement of his philosophy. He argues that freedom is vital for the sake of users and society as a moral value, and not merely for pragmatic reasons such as possibly developing technically superior software. Eric S. Raymond, creator of the open source movement, argues that moral arguments, rather than pragmatic ones, alienate potential allies and hurts the end goal of removing code secrecy.

In February 1984, Stallman quit his job at MIT to work full-time on the GNU project, which he had announced in September 1983.

References

2. The first portion above is from 'early years' (but also actually covers seven years of his time at MIT -- 1971 to 1977) and the bulk of the quote is from 'decline of MIT hacker culture' which covers from 1979 through February 1984, along the way giving portions of RMS's philosophy... most of which he came up with long afterward. My suggested rewrite would look something like the outline below. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

[Section] Early Years: New York City Existing section, but I'm splitting out some of the content. Now covers 1953 through summer of 1971, ending with departure for Harvard. Existing text (not shown in excerpt above) looks fine, except I'm not positive when RMS graduated from high school: did he really enroll in his first year of college in the fall of 1971? He graduated from Harvard in 1974, which suggests he either graduated a year early from high school in NYC, or a year early from Harvard. Or maybe my math is just off.  :-)

[Section] Early Years: MIT New section-split. Covers 1971 through 1984, from when he was hired at the MIT AI Lab (including the period from 1974-1977orMaybeLater when he was an employee and simultaneously a grad student) through the point when he left to work fulltime on GNU. Sticks to the facts, no philosophy-insertions. Covers passwd in 77, scribe in 79, xerox printer in 80, and the invention-then-commercialization of the LISP machine from 1974 through 1982 (plus it would be good to add some background on CTSS/ITS/TENEX/TECO history).

[Section] Background: events leading to GNU == New section-split. Discusses the *general* hardware situation of the 1970s and early 1980s, the traditional ways software distribution-slash-licensing worked in the 1970s and early 1980s, the changes in copyright law of 1976 (and the lawsuits of 1980 which finalized the meaning of the statute), and how these wider events had an impact on RMS, MIT AI Lab, and the nascent LISP machine industry, which by 1983 included big names like TI from Texas and Xerox from California. Simultaneously, we need to give a bit of historical background on BSD and Sun Microsystems and Guy Steele, which was a west-coast parallel to the LispM and Symbolics and David Moon and Dan Weinreb experience which RMS saw first-hand on the east-coast (note in particular that by 1985 the goal of the GNU project was a UNIX-like operating system -- as opposed to a LispM-like operating system!). Explain, in NPOV fashion, why RMS did what he did.

[Section] GNU project Existing section, not shown in excerpt above, mostly fine as-is in the original article. Would be good to give additional details on Xemacs-nee-LucidEmacs-cf-EpochEmacs, since that contentious fork of EMACS/Xemacs in 1989-1994+ was indirectly related to the contentious reverse-fork of EMACS/ZMACS-ZWEI-EINE in the 1976-1983 era (Symbolics of the early 1980s was a LispM hardware&software company ... Lucid of the early 1990s was a LispM/etc software-only company).

3. Note that the only thing I'm suggesting here is *titles* for the new sections, with an overview of their contents (existing content in existing sections will be reorganized under the new section-names but nothing will be deleted). Anybody have thoughts on this new approach to organizing the sections, before I wade in and make the edit? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done as of a few minutes ago in the main article. The initial split, at least, plus a few of the edits mentioned -- RMS skipped a grade in HS, so he was attending Harvard in fall 1970, and started working at the AI Lab down the river sometime in spring of 1971 (certainly by summer). TBD: flesh out the background-section with relevant material about LispM commercialization e.g. Symbolics/LMI/XPARC/TI/Lucid, commodity UNIX and commercialization of BSD e.g. SunOS-to-Solaris, and copyright law with regard to software (invention of GPL as a self-protecting alternative to BSD) and to user interfaces (RMS was involved in fighting look-n-feel lawsuits e.g. Lotus 123). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Quotes on significant social issues (RMS still holds)

I added the following to "Personal Life," and it was deleted twice:

Stallman believes prostitution, adultery, necrophelia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, incest, and pedophilia should all be legal, stating "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children," and "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children." (See original diff [1]).

On the second submission, I cited that I have personally contacted him in email (July 2012) asking if these quotes were accurate, to which he replied yes. I asked him if they were taken out of context, and he replied no. I asked him if there were any additional explanations he'd like to give, and he said no. And the latest references are in his January 2013 archives on stallman.org. [2]

These are obviously stunning and shocking quotes, but they are also things people researching RMS should know about with regards to his person and personal views -- specifically the necrophelia, child pornography, and pedophilia portions, which are views generally not accepted by societies. I would like these references added back in to the article. 68.57.226.96 (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. --AVRS (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Stallman's own website, stallman.org, contains these quotes. His publication. 68.57.226.96 (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"I cited that I have personally contacted him in email (July 2012)" - Obviously some due diligence has been done here, which would be fine if original research was allowed. However, because there is no way other readers or editors of Wikipedia can verify the content of your email conversation, it can not be used as an sources on Wikipedia. As it stand, half of the suggested edit is then conjectural interpretation of the quotes, which is explicitly not allow on articles about living people. What is left then is the quotes by themselves, and here I look at WP:WELLKNOWN. In this case, the quote is not very noteworthy, nor that relevant, and only has documentation from a self-published blog post. As such, I suggest follow the policy advice and leave it out until a time if and when reliable third-party sources pick it up. It is important than the article do not become scandal mongering, so letting reliable third-party sources decide if such quote is noteworthy is good method to maintain a high quality article. Is there a reason why an exception should be made in this case? Belorn (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As I read it, scandal mongering does not apply as these quotes are from his personal website, and not of a grapevine or rumor. And as for being cited in publications, there are many people who bring these comments up in comments section on Stallman-related articles and threads (do a google search for the quote and you'll find many). But at the article level, there is a publishing bias or reluctance to include this information for the same reasons being observed here -- that it's of such sensitivity as to deserve special consideration before conveying, that it could easily be coupled to something like scandal mongering (because it's of that scope). But this position by publishers and the Talk community here at Wikipedia, I think, only lends credence to the notion that it SHOULD be published and people should be made known about it because it is that shocking (that it actually rattles people). People need to know the highlights of the man's views before they side with him only on the free software advocacy position, for example, and to be able to do so here without going through hours of sifting through everything personal he's written over his life.

This wikipedia article is a snapshot summary of important facets of who Stallman is, and this most definitely ranks as one of them. He believes, and affirms when questioned about it, that people should be allowed to have sex with the dead, or with children, and that it doesn't harm them or anyone else in doing so.

I originally cited my email verification because I too found it shocking and wanted to personally validate that he was being quoted inaccurately and that he still held these beliefs (because I thought the same thing here -- rumor, smearing, lies, etc). But it's not that. Those really are his beliefs.

In the personal life section today we have such societal view positions as his take on God, Christmas, influential role models, political influences, beliefs on not being tracked by the government via cell phones, use of keycard security, paper ballot boxes, musical art tastes, and languages spoken. We learn a lot about the man ... but we do not learn that he also believes it should be legal for men and women to have sex with the dead, or with children, and that these things are not harmful.

The items being discussed in this Talk section are poignant positions of note, especially when compared to societal norms which do not generally align with his beliefs. And Stallman is a type of public figure, a man of interest to many disciplines due to his free software advocacy, even being sought after for public speaking engagements world-wide. And it's worth noting that in each of those engagements he speaks at length about how the Linux operating system should be called "GNU/Linux". Why? He explains that if it were simply called "Linux" then there's a possibility some people would come away with the belief the product they use ties back to Linus Torvalds, and therefore to his beliefs and philosophies as the root creator of the entire system. And this is something Stallman addresses at length in every speech on free software, and in the Q&A sections at the end. He cites the dangers of not having the full picture here because the beliefs held by Torvalds, and the focus and direction of the Linux kernel project in general, are in stark contrast to the beliefs held by GNU and the free software movement under copyleft protection. Note: This distinction is highlighted in the movie Revolution OS [3] with sections beginning around 30:00 in, and in his speech around 72:00 in when he received the Linus Torvalds Award for the Free Software Foundation.

Stallman's personal concerns on this issue are that GNU's free software efforts will be equated to Linux and its affiliation with open source instead of free software, and he goes out of his way to clarify that in his speeches.

Bringing that position forward, that the root philosophy and image of something really does bear purposeful distinction so as to highlight differences, the same holds true here for the man himself because he has a particular public persona, an outward face of free software advocacy, and the other beliefs the public sees in his speeches which are highly desirable. But they're also coupled to this other, non-trivial component of his belief system, a component that is of such a kind most people would likely find it off-putting enough to warrant never having anything to do with him or his endeavors again because of it alone.

In short, it's of such an impact, of such scope and size that the public's interest demands they be made aware of it in this article as a tier one piece of information. The things easily seen outwardly in his public face and speeches are coupled to this other facet of his beliefs that would likely change people's position regarding him were they known.

People need to be made aware of who it is they're following. And a summary article about Stallman should contain this information as an aspect of his belief system, a front page component, something a person would read in the first two minutes of searching after him, because it is at least on par with his views on God and political affiliation (and that doesn't yet include the aspects of bestiality, incest, or child pornography -- all of which he supports as well). 68.57.226.96 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

We have to go with reliable sources, and what they are saying. I can appreciate having strong views on the matter, many do, but we can't base edits on personal views. Publishing original research, and making people aware is not in the mission of Wikipedia. Start a blog, post on forums, discuss on social media, but here is not the place for such activities.

Depending on how the quotes are interpreted, some people might feel shocked. I don't interpret them in that way, but thats my personal view. The quotes do not imply any legislation change, but rather is a traditional academic reaction. There have been several well funded research studies that sought a larger understand about the harm of sexual abuse to children, and what/whatnot is primary causes for harm. The few extracts from such reports that I have read also commonly discuss the question about consent, which RMS statement is similar to. However, that is my interpretation of the quotes. To complicate matter more, the definition of pedophilia is distinct different in US (RMS is a US citizen), and the medical definition of pedophilia. As such, I do not even know if RMS is talking about some who is 18 years old that dates some who is 17, or if he is using the medical definition where it must be a person of 16 years or older who has sex with someone under 11 years old. As such, we could likely keep discussing this for a very long time and argue what kind of interpretation is the right one, but Wikipedia forbids such discussions on talk pages. It is simply not allowed. If talk pages become battlegrounds for discussing the subject matter, it would damage the goals that Wikipedia try to achieve. As such, it suggest that editors who want to write about their personal opinion do so in blogs, forums and social media. Belorn (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing comments on that subject under articles about RMS, they are probably all made by trolls. Comments do not make it notable. His personal blog contains many more and much stronger comments on environment, GMO and the possibility of global warming, and those are not mentioned in the article (please don't add it). Comparison of that with his beliefs on God or free software is your personal biased synthesis (different people have various beliefs, and not necessarily consistent or strongly interconnected in the same way). --AVRS (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(reply to original comment) That's some serious cherry picking there. Would you care to summarise his other opinions or are you only interested in publishing a terse summary about sex? Why?

There's also the issue of notability. We could mention that he has ten toes, but it's not something he's famous for. He's also not know for his stance on bestiality, so I don't see the reason for putting it in an encyclopaedia article about him. He doesn't campaign for any of those things, and he doesn't even claim to do, have done, or even be interested in trying any of them (unless you call it bestiality when a Parrot rubbed its genitals on him). Being on a web page doesn't make things notable.

If every comment I ever made in the pub was on a web page, motivated people could make awful summaries. Gronky (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI We had an IP address (174.96.174.11 (talk · contribs)) try to re-insert the same Original research lines about Stallman's views on the social issues in addition to his eating a bit of toe jam while in public. I've reverted them up to the 3RR limit and directed them to follow BRD and come here to present their case for why it should be included. Pending a substantial case being made I claim the BLP exemption to the WP:EW rules which specifically authorizes breaking the 3RR in cases where the content is not appropriately sourced and defamatory to the subject. Hasteur (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the above conclusion. Why is it notable to say that RMS supports Bernie Sanders, admires Winston Churchill, doesn't support Israel, likes folk music and reads science fiction - all relatively common characteristics - yet not okay to say that he supports child sex and child pornography? If I don't get a reasonable response in 7 days, I'm re-adding the material. Orthogonal1 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Admiring Winston Churchill isn't a topic specifically covered by our WP:BLP policy (I am not at this time expressing an opinion on whether the material should be included or excluded, just that if it is it must follow BLP policy). Technical note: if the material is included the quote should be in full, not shortened, and the citation should be to where he first wrote it, which is at [ https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I would normally see your point, but Stallman doesn't seem to think that this is private or negative information. If he removes the comments from his website, I'd be the first to say that they should be removed from the article. Would you be able to write to him, explain that we're thinking of adding the comments to the article and ask if he objects? Thanks. Orthogonal1 (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Johnuniq just reverted the material and requested on my talk page that if I wish to add it, I should raise the issue at WP:BLPN. I have done so. Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Mention This Historical Event

Hey, you guys should mention this historical event [4] which brought India's senior most politician L.K. Advani and RMS together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two2face (talk • contribs) 11:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes, meeting very influential people is worth mentioning. For people outside of India, can you explain why Advani is influential? If RMS met a president or a king, everyone would understand why that is important, but what does "India's senior most politician" mean? Is that your opinion? Or is he just the oldest politician in the country? Or does have have a very senior rank in the government?

Can you try mentioning this in the article (probably near paragraphs 6 or 7 of the Activism section, or can you suggest some text here for discussion? Thanks. Gronky (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Stories"

The article here describes "The Right to Read" and other articles on gnu.org as "science-fiction stories". I believe this is misleading, and factually incorrect. Those articles are listed under philosophy/, not stories/, and they are very similar in tone to technical use-cases, for example, those in cryptography which feature characters such as Alice and Bob. These are philosophical allegories, at the very least, and not intended as simple science fiction. I elieve this should be corrected. 94.4.113.249 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

rms in lower-case

It can be easily verified that Richard Stallman goes by the lower-case initials of rms. Yes, lower-case. Please stop reverting the edits. 80.236.48.144 (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Commenting here since it's relevant again due to a similar IP: there is no evidence that this is the case. I tried looking everywhere, including his personal website - it appears most likely that it is capitalized from what I have found. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT CALL MY EDITS VANDALISM AND REVERT ALL THREE OF THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSTRUCTIVE. THANK YOU! 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• All caps isn't really helping your case here. Besides, vandalism is a broad term here - it's a catchall for edits that appear to be unconstructive. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

YOU APPEAR TO PREFER ALL-CAPS IN SPITE OF WHAT STALLMAN HAS ALWAYS USED, SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD APPEAL TO YOU. USING ROLLBACK AND THE MINOR FLAG TO REVERT NON-VANDALISM IS DISRUPTIVE AND PROHIBITED, IT MAY RESULT IN REVOCATION OF YOUR ROLLBACK AND TWITTER RIGHTS. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Intemperate responses will not do a great deal to improve your reputation here.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Before there was the Internet, there was ARPAnet, and MIT had four systems connected. All four ran ITS, MIT's "Incompatible Time Sharing" system. Like most time-sharing systems of the 60s and 70s, ITS used all caps. Stallman's login there was "RMS". Those who use the all-caps version are probably hearkening back to those days. But this is the 2010s, and almost all computer systems use MixeD cASe, so "rms" should be fine.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where Kirbanzo has been looking, but I've known rms for decades, and I've never seen his ID written RMS. I see that he occasionally uses it on his web site, but that's very much the exception. The reference in the article is to lower-case rms. I've changed the article to refer to both, with a reference that rms is also his email ID (rms@gnu.org). Please don't change back without discussion. Groogle (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Change profile picture on top to a more "neutral" one

I propose to change the profile picture on top of this page to a more "neutral" one. The current picture shows Richard Stallman in non-usual, kind of traditional clothes. I think this does not represent this person in a good way. Because Richard Stallman is such a polemical figure, the use of non-usual pictures just helps to feed critics and clichés at least for one of the two opposite views towards him. However, in general it should be avoided in an encyclopedia to fuel polemic. That is why on top of an article about Richard Stallman there should be a usual picture by him, a picture that allows a more neutral reception. There are plenty of such pictures available to use in Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman (Unfortunately, the same picture is used on top of the following wikipedias and should be changed accordingly: DE, EN, FR, PA) Dreirik (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Which one of the Wikimedia Commons do you suggest we use instead? I think argument that was used for the current one was the date, which of course is now out-of-date. If one looks for attributes like neutrality and representing picture, I think most of the neutral/with red shirt should be usable. Belorn (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest this one from 2015: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Stallman_at_CommonsFest_Athens_2015_2.JPG It matches a lot of important criteria for an encyclopedia: very well illuminated, typical activity (giving talk), typical dress (red shirt) and it is more recent as the current one. Dreirik (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest finding a recent one from the LibrePlanet mediagoblin site. [5] for example is a decent photo, from 2018, and licensed CC-BY-SA. Eman235/talk 01:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done per this edit. 81.225.31.236 (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Richard Stallman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071016191823/http://gnu.org.in:80/node/25 to http://www.gnu.org.in/node/25
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120307004157/http://www.macfound.org:80/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.1142703/k.787E/Fellows_List__August_1990.htm to http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.1142703/k.787E/Fellows_List__August_1990.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120623143602/http://www.uigv.edu.pe/relaciones-publicas/3108_conferenciastallman.php to http://www.uigv.edu.pe/relaciones-publicas/3108_conferenciastallman.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Political views

"When asked about his influences, he replied that he admires Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich, and commented as well: "I admire Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, even though I criticize some of the things that they did."[47] Stallman is a Green Party supporter,[1] and a supporter of the National Initiative proposal.[103] He has also publicly endorsed Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential campaign bid.[104]

Politically, Stallman has expressed that he is not an anarchist.[105]"

This anarchist part is pointless, the paragraph before details his political views. That sentence is the equivalent of saying someone is not a republican when the paragraph before says someone is a democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp16103 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 January 2016

Unsubstantiated / Outdated claims

In the opening header, "... most notably the GNU General Public License (GPL), the most widely used free software license."

Really? Says who? The stats in the reference link are from 2002. This seems unlike nowadays. If I had to guess I'd say MIT or Apache.

IMHO, "the most widely used free software license" should be removed.

mj1856 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@mj1856 "Unsubstantiated..." the methodology is provided (unlike others which are opaque black boxes); "Outdated..." LWN in 2013 say 58%; "Really? Says who?": the cited source; "If I had to guess... [&&] IMHO..." doesn't matter, we need evidence. -- dsprc ^[talk] 11:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dsprc Searching for current information, I found BlackDuck's list, which shows MIT in first place with 26%, and GitHub's blog showing MIT at 44.69%. Both of these are newer than the current cited source. Anyway, I don't think that's what this article is about, so it should be removed or rephrased. mj1856 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

this is addressed in the lwn article; blackduck is an unverifiable black box. the license blurb is fine for inclusion. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Stallman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110516080049/http://static.fsf.org:80/nosvn/faif-2.0.pdf to http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/faif-2.0.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Stallman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140421082357/http://rudd-o.com/archives/2006/12/13/success-for-free-software-in-latin-america to http://rudd-o.com/archives/2006/12/13/success-for-free-software-in-latin-america

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

148.87.19.206 (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Is the "CONS" link correct on this page? Here is the text:

"As a hacker in MIT's AI laboratory, Stallman worked on software projects such as TECO, Emacs for ITS, and the Lisp machine operating system (the CONS of 1974–1976 and the CADR of 1977–1979—this latter unit was commercialized by Symbolics and LMI starting around 1980).[13]"

The target of that CONS link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONS, which does not seem relevant to this page.

2. And that reference [13] looks odd too - what does this mention of CONS and CADR (two Lisp functions, though perhaps something else was meant in this context?) have to do with a book about Wikipedia?

[13] Lih, Andrew (2009). The Wikipedia Revolution. New York City: Hyperion. ISBN 978-1-4013-0371-6. OCLC 232977686.

Incorrect links? "CONS" and reference [13]

148.87.19.206 (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Is the "CONS" link correct on this page? Here is the text:

"As a hacker in MIT's AI laboratory, Stallman worked on software projects such as TECO, Emacs for ITS, and the Lisp machine operating system (the CONS of 1974–1976 and the CADR of 1977–1979—this latter unit was commercialized by Symbolics and LMI starting around 1980).[13]"

The target of that CONS link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONS, which does not seem relevant to this page.

2. And that reference [13] looks odd too - what does this mention of CONS and CADR (two Lisp functions, though perhaps something else was meant in this context?) have to do with a book about Wikipedia?

[13] Lih, Andrew (2009). The Wikipedia Revolution. New York City: Hyperion. ISBN 978-1-4013-0371-6. OCLC 232977686.

And I see that there are multiple uses of reference [13] on this page, and they too seem suspect (irrelevant). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.206 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Opinions on abortion and Down's Syndrome

Recently, on his own blog, Stallman recently came out as pro-abortion of fetuses which have been diagnosed as having Down's Syndrome. I think this is important enough to note in this article, but I don't know where to put this. Perhaps a new "Political Opinions" section or something of the like? — Supuhstar * — 01:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Has his opinion on abortion received coverage by reliable sources? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem would be that editors would be deciding which internet snippets to pick and compile into a "political opinions" section (WP:OR). Stallman has had a lot of ideas, and many people might disagree with some of them. Editors should not pick some ideas and work them up into presenting a view about the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Antinatalist?

This page is in the Category:Anti-natalists. Is there a source confirming that? If not, please remove. 2603:3020:190B:F600:A00:27FF:FE61:B8D (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the category. In his Why it is important not to have children, he argues against it for social-economic & environmentalist reasons. He does not see procreation as an ill in-it-self ("I don't wish that nobody had any children"). 2603:3020:190B:F600:A00:27FF:FE61:B8D (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Stallman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mccullagh.org/image/d30-23/richard-stallman-and-flag.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707171139/http://www.uni.edu.pe/sitio/novedades/2008/np_081114_stallman.htm to http://www.uni.edu.pe/sitio/novedades/2008/np_081114_stallman.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130821115904/http://agora.lakeheadu.ca/agora.php?st=327 to http://agora.lakeheadu.ca/agora.php?st=327

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Stallman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718014725/http://www.devthought.com/2012/06/09/richard-stallman-robbed-in-argentina/ to http://www.devthought.com/2012/06/09/richard-stallman-robbed-in-argentina/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Which Copyright Act amendment exactly?

The article currently notes that:

This shift in the legal characteristics of software can be regarded as a consequence triggered by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 ...

But the notion of copyrighting software — are more precisely, computer programs — did not occur until a 1980 amendment introduced the concept. I think a correction is needed but not before the necessary background research can confirm this view. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Linux for the GNU Project

This section is written from a perspective partisan against Stallman. Is it possible to express his concerns in a way that reflects his feelings and not the impressions of his detractors? Here is the primary reference to the topic: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html Quiliro (talk) 21:41, 2018 october 28 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello, I removed two categories: "Filkers" and "Science fiction fans" because they are not supported by the article or reliable secondary sources, which is required by WP:CATV. Also, it has already been mentioned that rms goes by the lowercase initialism "rms" not by upper-case. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 and 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26: Ok, the first one I'm fine with ( Self-trout for that revert, apologies), but neither you or the previous IP have provided evidence that "RMS" is lowercase. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I kinda wish we could claim him; but there's nothing in the article to indicate that he was ever a filker or otherwise a member of the fannish community. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, hence the selftrout. But I'm mainly taking issue with the lowercase "RMS" part, as I'm finding nothing to suggest it's not as it was before. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

He was a Guest of Honor at Finncon in 2001, but he was described as "Hacker, computer networks expert". --Orange Mike | Talk 01:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Again, hence the selftrout. The main part I'm taking issue with is him making "RMS" (his psuedonym) lowercase without providing evidence that this is the case (WP:V). Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

He did write at least one filk song. Eman235/talk 01:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of borderline to characterize it as filk, although it's certainly in the filk spirit. He only seems to sing it at hacker cons and the like. There are several computer-related songs which you will hear at filksings, especially ones haunted by older filkers; but they are not necessarily true filk, any more than the Tom Lehrer, Weird Al or Alan Sherman songs that will also make an appearance. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

How about every single place his email address is listed? UNIX usernames have been lowercase since it was invented in the 70s. When rms had his account at gnu.ai.mit.edu, everyone logged in as "rms" and used the password "rms". If we'd logged in as "RMS" with password "RMS" it would've failed, because both of those things are case-sensitive. I just found a dozen email archives listing Stallman's many email addresses all beginning with "rms@". Yes, sometimes he is colloquially called "RMS" so it's not entirely consistent, but I must say that as far as him calling himself a pseudonym, he's always used "rms" when he talks to the computer - and given his lack of social graces, it is far more important what he tells a computer than what he tells a human being. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding filking: I know for a fact that he is a filker; but per WP:CATV we need WP:RS and support in the article text before we can use the categories. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I had not known that. What SF cons does he attend? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

He's got a whole page of his own filks on his website at http://www.stallman.org/doggerel.html; he has had a filk published in Xenofilkia; so I've added him back to the category. He is apparently a regular at Arisia. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I put "Filkers" and "Science Fiction Fans" back in his categories: regular attendee at Arisia (and has participated in panels) and has had a song published in Xenofilkia.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The reason they were removed is because of the lack of sources and no support in the article. You have not resolved either of those issues. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hokay, I've added WP:SPS to support the categories... now, who would like to talk about WP:DEFINING and WP:TRIVIA? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps @Contaldo80: and @Johnuniq: should like to comment to justify why they do not think that random excerpts from rms' bio and faq are not miscellaneous trivia. I am certainly not referring to his atheism in particular. But it seems to me that editors are so hell-bent to retain categories on filking and scifi that we need to justify them per WP:CATV and it just turns into bloat. Why are we singling out scifi, instead of presenting a comprehensive picture of his tastes: "Genres I enjoy include fiction, science fiction, mystery, romance occasionally, history, anthropology, science, mathematics, and occasionally other things." If we're going to profile rms, let's do it right, instead of whatever 'we' feel is interesting. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's see your alternative but adding a pointy tag is not going to fly. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Is his love of science fiction WP:DEFINING? Is there something else we can say, and expand on it, other than just jamming that fact into the trivia list and re-adding the category? Why is his love of scifi more defining than his love of mathematics? And why shouldn't he also be in Category:Mathematicians? What about his love of medieval polyphony? Why does this not rise to the threshold of inclusion? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm pretty much convinced by previous comments about WP:DEFINING, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:SPS. I won't remove the categories myself, but I withdraw my objection to their removal.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Defending Epstein

Ya'll are wild for keeping this out of the article to make sure it reads like a hagiography.

I'm adding a section about his current spree of defending Epstein, who gave money to MIT. It's public record, concerns notable events, and cited by outside media sources . It's gonna be sloppy so if you want to edit it for style be my guest; if it gets removed, this article will be lying by omission about the most prominent piece of public advocacy Stallman has done in years, which is, in actual fact, defending Jeffrey Epstein. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

References

So after a brief edit war where I got pointed towards what kinds of citations were okay my edit has been deemed too 'editorial' and pared down to the bare minimum regarding Stallman's defense of Minsky for participating in Epstein's alleged sex trafficking ring.

While the rest of the Stallman article goes on at length about him and his opinions, something negative has to be pared down to the bare minimum at harm to whether or not it makes any sense? I can't cite a policy that says this is wrong, but: it's definitely wrong. It's removing information relevant to the discussion. I am basically done with this, though. You can have your hagiography as unmarred as possible by anything negative about Stallman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.39.178 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a word here: all articles I have seen so far misrepresent what he says, so be mindful. 173.24.39.178, he did not defend Epstein at all. He did not describe the victims as "entirely willing". He described them as being forced to act as if they were entirely willing. In this, he is asserting that Minsky might not have knowingly had sexual relations with the victim against her will. Whether or not that is plausible, I don't know; I'm not at all familiar with that case. All I can see is that Stallman is being misrepresented. M!dgard (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Point taken. Fortunately the segment currently tends to quote Stallman directly, which avoids this.173.24.39.178 (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

In at least one place the section currently has a quote that's taken gravely out of context. It reads "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing." The article you sourced it from is to blame for this. I copied the full quote in the PDF reference. I'd like to add the sentence about coercion, but we need a source for that. Secondary sources are easily proven deceitful so I think it is justified to quickly fix this based on the primary source for now. M!dgard (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no beef with your edit and think it's a good one. I am confused about primary vs secondary sources, however. I was specifically admonished not to use primary sources when all of this started; they, and everything supposedly from them was reverted. While I personally agree that primary sources are best, what exactly is the Wikipedia standard here? 173.24.39.178 (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If primary sources are accepted, please see the section on the bottom of this talk page. I can dig you up Stallman's latest on this. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, it wasn't really based on a rule, rather on common sense: I wanted to tone down this extreme statement on a WP:BLP as quickly as possible. But here we are, in The New Section someone mentioned WP:SELFPUB, so all is well. M!dgard (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Needs to be a section on his controversial views (most people consider his ideas to be creepy and wrong, maybe not the MIT community):

https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing

https://futurism.com/richard-stallman-epstein-scandal

https://thenextweb.com/dd/2019/09/13/free-software-icon-richard-stallman-has-some-moronic-thoughts-about-pedophilia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.194.26.73 (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Marvin Minsky and pedophilia

Since this talk page is a mess it occurs to me that if we're going to have to argue about this there should probably be its own section with its own thread.

For anyone coming in late: I wrote the (current) "Defense of Marvin Minsky and pedophilia" subheading. My original edits got reverted, and the current form of that section is entirely due to bringing them into compliance with Wikipedia standards that were being cited at me. Comments on the matter are scattered various places. I would appreciate it if people would say something about any further issues instead of reverting the edits wholesale, and there might as well be a dedicated spot for it.173.24.39.178 (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks whoever dropped the link to the pdf of the emails here, adding it as a source.173.24.39.178 (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey so btdubs I have some Stallman blog posts and emails defending himself and trying to fix his current screwup but I can't add them because I've been admonished that primary sources are bad. If any news outlets pick them up someone should add them to this section. 173.24.39.178 (talk)

Hi, indeed this talk page is a bit messy, discussion had already started in #Quotes on significant social issues (RMS still holds). I'll repeat my cautionary message here:

All news articles I have seen so far misrepresent what he says, so be mindful. He did not defend Epstein at all. He did not describe the victims as "entirely willing". He described them as being forced to act as if they were entirely willing. In this, he is asserting that Minsky might not have knowingly had sexual relations with the victim against her will. M!dgard (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Self-published and primary sources can be used under certain circumstances. See WP:BLPSELFPUB. If you add Stallman's response to this from his website, I doubt I will be reverting it. Haukur (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

On it. Couple of minutes. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that adds balance of a sort. I assume secondary sources will pick up Stallman's responses soon.

While I think this is still all far from ideal I accept that you are working in good faith here. Haukur (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with Stallman's position; however, I have no objection to publishing his defenses and making sure all statements concerning him are accurate.

Hey one of you just deleted the whole segment and threatened to block me on my talk page, what the hell is this? It's cited. It's current. It's notable. It's insanely biased to omit it from his page. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You cannot use the PDF from assets.documentcloud.org. Fox News is a very poor source, unreliable on many topics, especially ones like this with connections to Trump. And you should not use any self-serving stuff from stallman.org, or anything from stallman.org that refers to other people.

It astonishes me that anyone would want to give Stallman a bully pulpit on Wikipedia to state his reaction to the current news pieces about him. For controversial stuff like that, we should only tell the reader what secondary sources are saying about it. Stallman's words must be funneled through an independent observer for them to have any importance. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So can I substantially restore the content, remove the documentcloud references and direct Stallman quotes, and only use the Daily Dot and Fox references? This edit would be the one I would go for: [6] Vice had the original story and were my first choice but they're not marked reputable around these parts. All three are 'secondary sources'. I don't like Fox either but they're on Wikipedia's list and I was getting dinged for using Vice, which isn't. I can re-add Vice as a source, too, if that contributes to a showing that a wide range of news outlets are covering the story in substantially the same fashion.

I didn't cite Stallman with the purpose of giving him a pulpit; another editor in this edit: [7] objected to secondary sources on those topics saying "This quote isn't in the Fox article and it is a misquote in the Daily Dot article, omitting some critical quotation marks.", so I readded the content with direct Stallman quotes and his defense to respond to the criticism. For what it's worth, I don't think the added context or his defense makes any difference. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The previously linked to---on the talk page---Daily Beast article is authoritative (https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing). It's of sufficient public interest that non-tech venues are publishing articles about it. It belongs in his wikipedia page. These reverts to remove this content from the page make wikipedia worse. 192.222.197.155 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)