Coffs Free and Open Technology Network

Some people like bad jokes, the more lame and groan-inducing the better. Richard Stallman (who henceforth I'll refer to by his preferred name, RMS) is certainly one of those people.

One of these bad jokes, told many times by RMS over the years, has recently received some criticism, which subsequently triggered a barrage of outrage:

The talk started out with a rehash of open source [sic] history--much of which is, I'm certain, quite well-known to the audience, and then lapsed into a fairly undirected rant about C# and how no one should be using it (with a completely incomprehensible comment that it was "good" that there were free C# implementations... huh?), before Richard donned his "Saint Ignotius" [sic] get-up. For me, things went rapidly and drastically downhill from that point.

The nadir for me was Richard's explanation of "EMACS virgins" as "women who had not been introduced to EMACS" along with the advice that "relieving them of their virginity" was some sort of sacred duty for members of "The Church of EMACS".

What the hell is that, Richard? If it was intended to be humorous, it only reached the point of being offensive. We talk about how we can work better to involve more women in a meaningful way in open source development--where they're clearly under-represented--but this sort of nonsense, stuff which would have been preposterous even ten or twenty years ago, can only work to drive women away from such involvement. - David "Lefty" Schlesinger

So first, the primary issue. Was it a good joke? No, nor are most of the others in the Saint IGNUcius bit. If there's any amusement to be had in this well-worn routine it's in the obvious delight that RMS derives from delivering such bad jokes. Was it an appropriate joke to tell at such a gathering? This is a more difficult issue.

Stallman makes it very clear when launching into the Saint IGNUcius routine that the serious part of the talk is over, and he's therefore no longer speaking for the Free Software Foundation. He's defended this joke, reasonably I think, as being at the expense of religions (for whom virgins are women by definition) rather than intended to be insulting or derogatory towards women. Anybody reasonably familiar with RMS's views will know that he's not remotely sexist.

Mr Schlesinger, despite implying the contrary, is clearly not reasonably familiar with RMS's views. He still managed to come away with the impression that RMS was talking about "open source" despite having just sat through a talk where RMS surely made the point, as he always does, that he is not a part of or speaking for the open source movement. We can therefore understand why he might not be well acquainted with RMS's attitude to sexism, or anything else.

It is not my job to tell RMS what he can and can't say. Nor is it anybody else's job, despite the huge and growing queue of applicants for that position. The most I can say is that were I in his position, I wouldn't have made that joke. My principle concern would be that somebody might be genuinely offended or threatened. I don't believe that at the tail end of a lengthy speech where the speaker has demonstrated that his principle motivation in life is a progressive, humanistic morality there are reasonable grounds for such a reaction, but given the subject matter and the potential for any joke to be misunderstood, I don't think the joke is worth the risk.

A less serious concern in terms of the severity of immediate harmful consequences, but a much more likely negative outcome, is that as a contentious figure, RMS is a target for ad hominem attacks. Any possible offensive interpretation of any remark made by RMS is a weapon that can be used against him. It appears that most of the criticism arising from this speech has come from people who, motivated as they may be in part by a sincere aversion to sexism, also invariably misunderstand RMS's role or simply disagree with him.

For example, Mr Schlesinger need not be dismayed by what he sees as RMS driving women away from open source, because RMS is not, nor has he ever been, a member of the open source movement.

RMS has demonstrated himself tactless. FSF are clearly rubbish at marketing GNU & Ogg—they push principles before practicality. - Greg K Nicholson

We can only briefly pause to marvel at the implication that the world is using MP3 because of the personal character flaws of one man, and quickly move on because this quote neatly encapsulates the major (and a cynic might say real) complaints which eventually emerge from those who have accused RMS of sexism.

RMS's role at the FSF does not include marketing. If anybody at the FSF can be said to have responsibility for marketing it would be Campaigns Manager Matt Lee, who has had spectacular success, considering the power of the opposition, with campaigns like Defective By Design and BadVista (and granted, less spectacular but still significant success with PlayOgg). Note that these campaigns are about encouraging people to recognise the importance of their freedom, not merely encouraging them to use more free software for any one of a number of possible reasons:

[...] what does it mean to "use free software"? [...] Are we aiming to lead people to freedom, or just introduce them to our code? In other words, are we working for freedom, or have we replaced that goal with the shallow goal of popularity? - Richard Stallman

The FSF's mission is "to promote computer user freedom and to defend the rights of all free software users". i.e. to make it possible for any computer user to use their computer in freedom, should they choose to do so, not to make the use of free software more widespread regardless of users' concern for, or even knowledge about, the ethical issues.

As for putting principles before practicality: guilty as charged, something of which RMS should be justly proud. That is not to say that the FSF does not ever make tactical compromises. The GNU Lesser GPL is an example of such a compromise. However those who would want the FSF, and the wider free software moment, to make the sort of compromises which place practicality before principles merely for the sake of greater popularity for this or that piece of software, should consider whether the free software movement is something they should be claiming to support.

The open source movement is happy, indeed eager, to make those sorts of compromises, and might be a more comfortable home for those who are unhappy with RMS's principles or personal foibles.

The open source movement enjoys leadership by reasonable, universally repected figures who, by virture of the fact that they get little of the vitriol directed at RMS, must never say anything that could possibly be interpreted as offensive.

In the U.S., blacks are 12% of the population but commit 50% of violent crimes; can anyone honestly think this is unconnected to the fact that they average 15 points of IQ lower than the general population? - Eric S. Raymond

I think he is right to see Afghanistan, Iraq, and the suppression of Al-Qaeda as phases of longer, wider war — a clash of civilizations driven by the failure of Islamic/Arab culture. [...] I think he is also right to say that our long-term objective must be to break, crush and eventually destroy this culture, because we can't live on the same planet with people who both carry those memes and have access to weapons of mass destruction. They will hate us and seek to destroy us not for what we've done but for what we are. - Eric S. Raymond