Category: Free Software Foundation

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) announced it is implementing a new Board Member Agreement and  Code of Ethics that is meant to guide members in their responsibilities, decision-making, and activities. The documents, which FSF says were “designed to help make FSF governance more transparent, accountable, ethical, and responsible,” were created as part of a six-month long consultant-led review.

In March, FSF founder and GPL author, Richard Stallman, announced that he was returning to the board, after resigning as director of the board and president of the FSF in 2019. His resignation followed a series of controversial remarks on rape, assault, and child sex trafficking, along with two decades of behaviors and statements that many have found to be disturbing and offensive. He was subsequently ousted by GNU project maintainers from his position as head of the project.

Stallman’s controversial return was supported by the majority of FSF’s board, with the exception of board member Kat Walsh who resigned after voting against his reinstatement. The organization’s executive director, deputy director, and chief technology officer also resigned in protest. 

At that time, the FSF’s board published a statement saying they “take full responsibility for how badly we handled the news of his election to a board seat. We had planned a flow of information that was not executed in a timely manner or delivered in the proper sequence.” His reinstatement took FSF’s staff by surprise, as they were not informed or consulted.

Mozilla, the Open Source Initiative, Red Hat, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other prominent tech organizations also opposed the decision in published statements and removed their support for FSF and critical funding.

The WordPress Foundation, which previously listed FSF among the project’s inspirations, quietly removed the link from the website following the controversy. WordPress’ executive director Josepha Haden Chomphosy published a statement, saying she did not support Stallman’s return as a board member, and confirmed to the Tavern that this is also the WordPress project’s official stance.

In what appears to be an attempt to claw its way back to a semblance of accountability, FSF’s newly approved Code of Ethics is targeted at preempting future incidents of board members acting on behalf of the organization without permission. A few relevant ethics in the document include the following:

• Members of the board of directors will not undertake an activity that substantially hurts the FSF. When acting as board members, they will work toward the success of the FSF.
• Board members shall all avoid placing–and the appearance of placing–one’s own self interest or any third-party interest, including the interests of associate members, above that of the organization as a whole.
• Board members shall not speak on behalf of the FSF unless given explicit permission. Directors must not represent that their authority as board members extends any further than it actually extends. The board speaks as a whole, not as individuals.

New governance is a positive step towards transparency and accountability, but after all the damage done during the botched rollout of Stallman’s reinstatement, it’s not likely that opposing organizations will settle for anything less than his removal from the board.

The Free Software Foundation has published a public explanation of why they decided to reinstate Richard Stallman to the board of directors last month:

“The voting members of the Free Software Foundation, which include the board of directors, voted to appoint Richard Stallman to a board seat after several months of thorough discussion and thoughtful deliberation.

We decided to bring RMS back because we missed his wisdom. His historical, legal and technical acumen on free software is unrivaled. He has a deep sensitivity to the ways that technologies can contribute to both the enhancement and the diminution of basic human rights. His global network of connections is invaluable. He remains the most articulate philosopher and an unquestionably dedicated advocate of freedom in computing.”

The board took responsibility for bungling the news of his election to a board seat, stating that the planned flow of information was not executed in a timely manner. When Stallman announced his return to the board at last month’s LibrePlanet event, the free software community was not able to discern whether he did so with the board’s permission. It took the FSF by surprise, polarized the community, and provoked organizations and corporations to publish statements condemning his reinstatement.

The board admits that “FSF staff should have been informed and consulted first,” but follows it up by effectively downplaying his influence, stating that Stallman is “an unpaid volunteer and subject to the organization’s policies.”

The statement reads like a perplexing love letter for someone who struggles with social cues. It obscures most of the real issues outlined in an open letter signed by many prominent members of the free software community. The FSF board referenced a statement from Stallman, published one minute prior, and claims that he has acknowledged his mistakes:

“He has sincere regrets, especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the reputation and mission of FSF. While his personal style remains troubling for some, a majority of the board feel his behavior has moderated and believe that his thinking strengthens the work of the FSF in pursuit of its mission.”

The FSF board has officially confirmed that the majority of its leadership advocated for Stallman’s return and see it as important in its aim “to attract a new generation of activists for software freedom and to grow the movement.”

Stallman’s statement identifies his past behaviors as something outside his control, saying it was “not a choice” and “unavoidable:”

Later in life, I discovered that some people had negative reactions to my behavior, which I did not even know about. Tending to be direct and honest with my thoughts, I sometimes made others uncomfortable or even offended them — especially women. This was not a choice: I didn’t understand the problem enough to know which choices there were.

Sometimes I lost my temper because I didn’t have the social skills to avoid it. Some people could cope with this; others were hurt. I apologize to each of them. Please direct your criticism at me, not at the Free Software Foundation.

He also attempted to explain his position regarding the 2019 controversy that prompted his resignation from the FSF board and MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab.

“It was right for me to talk about the injustice to Minsky, but it was tone-deaf that I didn’t acknowledge as context the injustice that Epstein did to women or the pain that caused.

I’ve learned something from this about how to be kind to people who have been hurt. In the future, that will help me be kind to people in other situations, which is what I hope to do.”

This strategically intertwined pair of statements from Stallman and the FSF did little to change the community’s perception of his reinstatement to the board. They seemed to have the opposite effect of inflaming those who opposed it in the first place.

“I’m really grateful that the FSF board took the time to clarify this,” Squarespace founder Brian Fitzpatrick said. “This makes it crystal clear that they would rather have RMS around than become an inclusive and welcoming environment to more than half the people who write software. Toxic to the core.”

Congratulations on getting RMS offering a non-apology for being tone deaf. You've just inherited that skill.
It's time for that "new generation of activists for software freedom" to help another foundation grow.

— St⭕nehead (@stonehead) April 12, 2021

The statements were met with considerable backlash, as they did little to assuage community concerns regarding Stallman’s patterns of misconduct. More recently that includes his controversial remarks on rape, assault, and child sex trafficking, along with two decades of behaviors and statements that many have found to be disturbing and offensive. Whether these behaviors are motivated by malice or simply a lack of understanding the proper context, the damage to the FSF continues.

Red Hat principle engineer Elana Hashman, former director of the Open Source Initiative, published a thread with suggestions for 501(c)(3) public charities the community can donate to as an alternative to the FSF, including The Software Freedom Conservancy, EFF, OSI, and Software in the Public Interest.

Last week we reported that the WordPress project does not support Stallman’s return to the FSF board of directors. Curiously, WordPress’ executive director Josepha Haden-Chomphosy published the statement to her personal blog instead of on the project’s website, but she confirmed it is WordPress’ official stance on Stallman’s reinstatement. Since that time, the WordPress Foundation has quietly removed the Free Software Foundation from its list of inspirations.

Many corporations and individuals have distanced themselves and pulled funding from the FSF, but it has not had much impact on the leadership of the organization. The FSF board seems confident in their decision to keep Stallman in place, despite openly admitting that “his personal style remains troubling.” When the organization’s actions so sublimely repudiate its stated goals (to attract a new generation of activists for software freedom), it’s easy to see why former supporters can no longer buy into the FSF’s promises to improve transparency and accountability.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is hemorrhaging board members and management following the reinstatement of Richard Stallman. The GPL author and founder of the FSF announced last week that he had rejoined the board and is not planning to resign a second time. An open letter signed by more than 3,000 people called for the removal of Stallman from all leadership positions, including the GNU project, and removal of the entire Board of the FSF. So far it has gained support from Red hat, Mozilla, Outreachy, the Software Conservancy project, and many other high profile organizations.

“We are long past the point where we can pretend that the most important thing about software freedom is the software,” Mozilla Engineering Community Manager Michael Hoye said in signing support for the open letter. “We cannot demand better from the internet if we do not demand better from our leaders, our colleagues and ourselves.”

In addition to the resignation of former FSF board member Kat Walsh, the organization’s executive director, deputy director, and chief technology officer have also resigned. They published a joint statement, reaffirming their commitment to the mission of free software, despite their departure:

As members of FSF management, we have decided to resign, with specific end dates to be determined. We believe in the importance of the FSF’s mission and feel a new team will be better placed to implement recent changes in governance. Free software and copyleft are critical issues of our time, and the FSF is, and should continue to be, the organization leading this movement. FSF staff have our utmost respect, support, and appreciation, and it has been a privilege to work with you all. Our team’s mutual goal is to ensure a smooth transition while supporting the necessary renovation of the foundation’s governance.

An oddly-timed tweet announced a new published statement the FSF board voted on, which “condemns misogyny, racism, and other bigotry as well as defamation, intimidation, and unfair attacks on free thought and speech.” The statement was met with ridicule and outrage on Twitter, as it hints at the defense Stallman used when he resigned as the FSF board director, claiming he had been subject to “a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.”

While our primary mission is freedom for software users, we want to be clear, the FSF board unanimously condemns misogyny, racism,and other bigotry as well as defamation, intimidation, and unfair attacks on free thought and speech.

— Free Software Fndn. (@fsf) March 30, 2021

Recent statements published to the FSF website indicate that its leadership is doubling down on the decision to reinstate Stallman:

Some of our colleagues in the FSF have decided to resign. We are grateful for the good work they have done for so long, and we will miss them. We regret losing them; we regret the situation that has motivated them to leave.

We appreciate their strong commitment to free software and we want to find replacements with a similar competence and commitment. We are open to suggestions and applications for these positions.

Finally, we would like to thank the numerous friends across the free software movement who have recently joined as well as those who have left and provided suggestions for helping us through this difficult time.

The FSF seems to be counting the resignations as an acceptable loss, as funds from donors are evaporating. Several organizations have discontinued financial support for the organization. Most notably, Red Hat, a long-time donor with hundreds of contributors who have submitted millions of lines of code to projects stewarded by the FSF, publicly discontinued support for the organization and any of its events. In addition to $708,016 in membership dues, the FSF received $1,383,003 in contributions, gifts, and grants, which makes up the bulk of its annual revenue, according to a recent report on Charity Navigator.

Stallman is synonymous with the FSF and his reinstatement puts many free software advocates in a difficult position. Some cannot easily write off the entire organization, as it is engaged in important work. The FSF publishes the GPL, LGPL, and FDL licenses. It also holds copyrights to defend free software from those who would seek to make it proprietary and has the power to enforce the GPL. As part of its Free Software Licensing and Compliance Lab, the organization works to ensure that free software distributors respect their obligations to pass on the user freedoms that these licenses are meant to convey.

The Fedora Council cited the FSF’s important function when publishing a statement on why it is pulling funding from the organization:

Along with many in the free and open source software world, the Fedora Council was taken aback that the Free Software Foundation (FSF) has allowed Richard Stallman to rejoin their Board of Directors given his history of abuse and harassment. The Fedora Council does not normally involve itself with the governance of other projects. However, this is an exceptional case due to the FSF’s stewardship of the GPL family of licenses, which are critical for the work we do.

The council will not provide funding or attend any FSF-sponsored events where Stallman is a featured speaker or exhibitor, and stated that this also applies to any organization where he has a leadership role.

WordPress Responds to Stallman’s Reinstatement

Up until today, WordPress had not published an official statement on Stallman’s reinstatement to the FSF board. The WordPress Foundation website lists the Free Software Foundation as one of the project’s inspirations. WordPress co-founder Matt Mullenweg was also among the FSF’s list of patrons in previous years.

After asking WordPress’ executive director Josepha Haden Chomphosy for a comment regarding the matter, she published a statement:

In short, I do not support his return as a board member. 

It makes me proud that the WordPress project embodies the best traditions of open source and retires outdated traditions, or shibboleths, that do not have a place in our mission: to democratize publishing and grow the open web. For years, this community has been committed to championing underrepresented voices and maintaining a safe and welcoming environment for those we rarely see in open source. 

Although the statement is published on her personal blog, Haden Chomphosy confirmed that this is the WordPress project’s official stance on Stallman’s reinstatement. The statement quietly calls out Stallman’s lack of accountability and the fact that he has not publicly acknowledged how harmful his behavior has been to the free software community:

The high standards for welcoming behavior are held across the board. WordPress contributors lead with accountability, acknowledgment of error, and a genuine desire to grow based on feedback. Under the guidance of many thoughtful leaders, WordPress makes space for those who are committed to growth. 

The message is more focused on the positive aspects of the WordPress community and its values but is clear in the first paragraph: WordPress does not support Stallman’s return as an FSF board member.

GPL author Richard Stallman announced this week that he has rejoined the board of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), which he established in 1985, and is not planning to resign a second time:

“I have an announcement to make. I’m now on the Free Software Foundation Board of Directors once again. We were working on a video to announce this with, but that turned out to be difficult, we didn’t have experience doing that sort of thing so it didn’t get finished but here is the announcement. Some of you will be happy at this, and some might be disappointed, but who knows? In any case, that’s how it is, and I’m not planning to resign a second time.”

In 2019, Stallman resigned as director of the board and president of the FSF, and was subsequently ousted by GNU project maintainers from his position as head of the project. Calls for his removal were precipitated by Stallman’s controversial remarks on rape, assault, and child sex trafficking, along with two decades of behaviors and statements that many have found to be disturbing and offensive. His return came as a shock to the free software community, though some suspect he never really left.

“I did not support the decision to reinstate RMS,” former FSF board member Kat Walsh said after resigning from the board yesterday. “I made my arguments and placed my opposing vote; while I was glad I was able to do that I regret not being able to turn the decision the other way.

“I wish the organization well; my departure is not a rejection of the ideas of free software, only a belief that my role in the organization was no longer the best way to put them forward into the world.”

Stallman’s reinstatement came with a staggering lack of transparency from FSF’s board of directors and has triggered a cascade of condemnation from individuals and organizations across the tech industry. Among the many critical responsibilities it maintains, the FSF currently holds the copyrights to enforce the GPL.

The Open Source Initiative published a statement this week, calling for Stallman’s removal from FSF’s leadership:

The Open Source Initiative calls upon the Free Software Foundation to hold Stallman responsible for past behavior, remove him from the organization’s leadership and work to address the harm he caused to all those he has excluded: those he considers less worthy, and those he has hurt with his words and actions. We will not participate in any events that include Richard M. Stallman and we cannot collaborate with the Free Software Foundation until Stallman is removed from the organization’s leadership.  

Red Hat announced that it is suspending all funding of the FSF and any FSF-hosted events. Mozilla joined the Open Source Diversity Community, Outreachy, and the Software Conservancy project in supporting an open letter that calls for the removal of the entire Board of the Free Software Foundation, along with the removal of Stallman from all leadership positions, including the GNU Project. The letter states that the undersigned do not acknowledge Stallman’s leadership of the FSF and do not condone his actions and opinions:

There has been enough tolerance of RMS’s repugnant ideas and behavior. We cannot continue to let one person ruin the meaning of our work. 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.

The petition has been signed by more than 2400 free software advocates. Notable signatories include Molly de Blanc (Debian Project, GNOME Foundation), Elana Hashman (Debian Technical Committee Member, Open Source Initiative Director, Kubernetes SIG Instrumentation Chair), Neil McGovern (GNOME Foundation Executive Director, Former Debian Project Leader), and Luis Villa (Former Director of the Open Source Initiative and the GNOME Foundation; contributor to the GPL v3 drafting process).

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) published a statement urging the voting members of the FSF board to call a special meeting to reconsider Stallman’s reinstatement, in support of the “long-term viability of the free software movement:”

Free software is a vital component of an open and just technological society: its key institutions and individuals cannot place misguided feelings of loyalty above their commitment to that cause. The movement for digital freedom is larger than any one individual contributor, regardless of their role. Indeed, we hope that this moment can be an opportunity to bring in new leaders and new ideas to the free software movement.

Stallman still has many staunch supporters, as more than 2,000 people have signed an open letter in support of him and his leadership. They contend that removing RMS “will hurt FSF’s image and will deal a significant blow to the momentum of the free software movement.”

Stallman is still listed among the FSF’s board of directors, but the board appears to be reorganizing. A preliminary statement on upcoming changes to the board’s governance said they are moving to adopt a transparent, formal process for identifying candidates and appointing new board members. The board intends to require existing board members to submit to this process as well “to decide which of them remain on the board,” with a deadline of 30 days to complete the changes.

By allowing Stallman to resume his position, the FSF squandered the opportunity it had to redefine itself following his resignation in 2019. The organization missed the chance to carve out a new future that would be free from his damaging influence. If the board doesn’t act in the best interests of the greater community, by remedying its lack of transparency and accountability, it may permanently resign the organization to irrelevance.