The FSF/FSFE are often criticized for being too ideological to the point of impracticality (and yes I do lol at the pictures of RMS' laptop), but the more time goes on, the more correct and important that ideological stance seems to become. We are headed for a tech dystopia, and we must fight it. If not for us, for the rising generation that may never get to experience the hacker delights that we got to. Kudos to them for fighting the good fight.

▲

piyuv 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Due to the Overton window shifting so much, FSF should not be considered radical anymore. It’s the absolute minimum, even.

▲

noirscape 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The FSFE isn't nearly as impractical as the FSF is. Unlike the FSF, they're actually getting results, typically by lobbying politicians and trying to get governments to require that the code made for them is publicly available. From everything I've seen of them, they're much more capable of meeting people where they're at; take this lawsuit as an example.

The FSF wouldn't participate in a lawsuit like this because from the FSFs ideological perspective, the mistake is allowing Apple to have a closed source system to begin with (because they declared victory in the 90s and since then have shifted towards blaming users for not using Free Software); at most you'd see a head-up-ass press release after the lawsuit is settled, because that's what the FSF usually does; probably easier than actually putting in the effort to do anything to advance Free Software politically. The FSFe from what I can read in this post is actually cognizant that Apple actually has a market share and that opening up application development on Apple devices is a major step to ensuring a healthy Free Software ecosystem.

The FSF these days is a decrepit organization whose primary purpose in practice is to enable Richard Stallman to not have to participate in modern society and to host his philosophical screeds. It's issues are so specific to it that in terms of FOSS, they're a historical artifact at most. Even in the US, the SFC does more for the average free software developer (ref. the recent Bambu incident where they stepped up to help a developer from getting legal nastygrams from the company in question.)

	▲	parasense an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> The FSF wouldn't participate in a lawsuit like this because ... Because in reality the FSF is a WELFARE program for RMS. Look, I'm done defending the FSF and the GPL. I worked professionally on open source software for over 20 years, but I'm just another former Red Had employee. But oh boy have I seen some stuff, and have seen how the open source sausage is made. I could probably write a wall of text about how the open source world is populated by a bunch of people with various kinds of pathological personality disorders. I certainly consider some of those crazy people my friends, but we have to recognize the nature of these folks. RMS has to eat. That's why the FSF will never get involved with any big legal controversy. RMS cannot afford the legal expenditure from the modest stream of donations given to the FSF. But even if lawyers were willing to engage pro bono, they get disenfranchised by RMS and his specific quirky personality disorders. But whatever. In my humble opinion... I highly doubt these European open source zealots will make much progress. On the one hand they say closed source interoperation with GPL code is a violation of the GPL, and on the other hand they say closed source code must interoperate with GPL code, or else... Something something European this-or-that... I think these are nice people, but clearly crazy. Then again it's not quite clear what these crazy people are chasing after? Maybe they merely want API documents, but probably they want to run GNU Hurd on Apple silicon
	▲	zrn900 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> from the FSFs ideological perspective, the mistake is allowing Apple to have a closed source system to begin with And they have been proven right.

▲

Tomte 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

FSFE distanced itself from FSF at one point: https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.en.html

▲

my-next-account 3 hours ago | parent [-]

TIL, they're back supporting each other (scroll to the bottom):

Update 2026-01-26

To recap, in March 2021, the FSFE was forced to suspend our collaboration with the FSF to protect our work for software freedom from their apparent disregard for fostering a safe and welcoming community for software freedom advocates. At the time, we also hoped it would be an effective way of getting them to change into a more welcoming, appealing, and ultimately effective organization working to advance software freedom.

Meanwhile, the FSF has been changing: they have appointed Zoë Kooyman their executive director, they have adopted a code of ethics for their voting members, they have brought on new board members, they have recently elected a new president, Ian Kelling, a staffer first nominated to the board by their staff union in 2021, and they have had Eko K. A. Owen join the FSF board as their new union staff representative. They have changed from an organization synonymous with its founder to one led by staff committed to software freedom.

As a result, the FSFE has come to believe we can best advance software freedom, and foster a respectful, inclusive community around both of us, by working together with the FSF once more.

▲

F3nd0 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh, that’s great news! My respect for the FSFE just went back up a little!

▲

account42 3 hours ago | parent [-]

For putting identity politics over their primary mission? They didn't back down but persisted until the FSF complied with the mob.

	▲	F3nd0 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		For revisiting the matter and recognising positive change within the FSF. It’s a more honest look for them. The FSFE failing to distance themselves from the mob was what made me lose some respect for them in the first place.
	▲	jasonmp85 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]