The whole thing is a frameup, we shouldn’t even discuss about the content of that letter (there is no content). The whole thing is an artifact. Of course, it is possible, probable maybe, that Stallman did some wrongs in his interpersonal relationships during his life, but the letter is not about that, the letter’s purpose is only that of mobilitating an angry mob – as that critique explains – without expressing a real content. If you pay attention, the letter never shows facts, only insinuations and a sparse collection of sentences written by Stallman about the most disparate topics.
After reading the whole package you are brought to think that Stallman is a monster, but if I ask you “Okay, so what did Stallman do?”, you will not be able to answer. It is basically a manipulation experiment. That letter is one unique fallacy from the beginning to the end.
It is horrible that people who claim they defend free software have signed that stuff. It is interesting to read this old discussion on this forum, where a user tries to push Purism in front of a choice that must be decided immediately (something like, “Purism, sign that letter and sign it now, or you endorse the monster”), which is a classical blackmailer’s technique (“Don’t go to the police, don’t speak with anyone, speak only with me and do everything now”). I wonder what kind of cold, calculating and unempathetic mind was able to orchestrate the whole stuff.
I believe that GNOME and who signed that letter will pay in the long term (in part they are already paying, after all they are serving the punishment of having such leaders). But differently than them, I won’t ask for the resignation of anyone: the moment GNOME stops representing me I simply stop having anything to ask them. Style is important.