http://techrights.org/2022/03/03/fsf-removes-troublemakers/
> The Open Source Initiative isn’t what it’s called; it’s becoming more and more like a front group of proprietary software, offering sinister technology giants a bunch of openwashing services; Start with a truth, pretend the next part is true as well: > contrary to that, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) fought to regain its identity and this week we saw evidence of that No we did not. The FSF becomes still more and more like OSI. * OSI lost the Open Source trademark early on to dilution. FSF refuses to stand up to the GNU.fools fraudulent use of it. This could free up the GNU trademark for Microsoft (and IBM, who increasingly controls GCC and GDB). * The FSF fights WEAKER than ever for freedom, and is still silencing rms, which was a plan from OSI itself. * The symptoms TR is talking about at OSI now are the results of restructuring made at OSI during the (IBM) Phipps regime-- which opened up the organisation to more control by corporations. SIMILARLY at the FSF, they have (just recently) formally opened up board nominations to anyone with $100. You don't find TR talking about this because it is acting as a free / voluntary press secretary for the FSF. * IRC logs in side-channels on TR (not the main channel) show the same author claiming for a year the FSF is improving, doesn't really believe this. In IRC, in side-channels few people go to, he says the opposite-- which is closer to the truth. * No one is impressed with the new ED. I am neutral on this appointment for now, but I'm familiar with the reasons people are disappointed. Some of those reasons may or may not be fair. Others reflect (some of the less harsh ) critiques of Molly, who was not only an FSF/OSI person like Deb but who attacked and helped silence rms. It's not my intent to tar Zoe with the same brush, but there is just enough (if only a a little) in common to give pause. > THE video above concerns the appointment of Zoë Kooyman, which we mentioned two days ago. Since doing that video, based on this announcement, Kooyman herself wrote this statement, shown above in the video. I read it. It's middle of the road, like you would expect anyone joining the FSF at this point to be. Anyone who really cared about free software would have likely given up on an FSF appointment by now. The board has a new anti-whistleblower policy and an obligation on board memebers to PROMOTE the FSF, which I refer to as the transformation to a cheerleading brigade. That really shouldn't be the board's job in my opinion. This is on top of the usual NDA BS they subject people to. * The FSF has a culture of secrecy. In typical TR (treadmill, OH NO IT'S FINE) fashion, TR has actually said the FSF secrecy is a problem (just as Daniel has complained that Debian's secrecy goes against their own community guidelines-- #3 I think.) But what I mean about typical TR fashion is that although they complained about FSF secrecy a year ago, and the secrecy got even worse in 2022, (and it's only March) TR can only speak of things in glowing terms. * IN FACT JUST A DAY OR TWO AGO http://web.archive.org/web/20220302064942/http://techrights.org/index/ the story was: http://techrights.org/2022/03/01/libreplanet-2022-without-rms/ > Based on recent communications with Richard Stallman (RMS), he’s still very much in charge of the FSF, but the FSF seems reluctant to use him as the FSF’s public face as a result of shaming campaigns That's the FSF caving to the mob. Not just the mob though: > The short story is, it seems likely that monetary power of stakeholders contributes to alienation of the FSF’s own founder So he blames moneyed interests. And yet as you can see on the archived index page (newest posts are at the top, which means the post numbers 0-3 actually rotate in the opposite direction as the stories themselves, but whatever) the story of Zoe's appointment came immediately after the story of Stallman being silenced (as it did on libreplanet-discuss, which hardly stands for anything either) and this has the comical result of going from this story: "it seems likely that monetary power of stakeholders contributes to alienation of the FSF’s own founder" IMMEDIATELY from there to: "the response we've seen or heard (alluding to this decision) has thus far been overwhelmingly positive" And since sucking up to the FSF for journalistic crumbs from their table is part of TR's M.O., the minute there's news that isn't overwhelmingly negative, everything is fucking sunshine and happiness-- even if the news is incredibly mediocre. Maybe Roy joined the board, because he's certainly following the sunshine-and-happiness clause of the new "ethics" oath they swear members to. At least he has since Zoe was appointed. > Some people have been asking what it means to the FSF (and to GNU), so I wanted to respond in the form of a video (“No Derivative” so people cannot distort what I actually said). Yeah, thanks for adopting the FSF's war on free culture. No-Derivs NEVER prevents distortion, for the same reason All Rights Reserved didn't stop people from getting rms fired based on a mailing list post. IF IT'S PUBLIC, the people most likely to distort what you're saying won't be stopped by copyright. This is a complete double standard (which is Stallman's own fault) given that Stallman himself says copyright isn't "protection". But when it comes to essays his position is the opposite. That's why I stopped funding the FSF. Their attacks on free culture (and free hardware) suck. And the attacks from CC are worse and I've never given them a cent. > Kooyman was in fact selected (promoted) months ago. I seriously wonder why they do this. It was the same story with Knauth and allegedly Stallman's return-to-the-public-that-wasn't. > It has meanwhile been advertised by the new chief of the OSI that, following his admission that half of the OSI's budget goes to Microsoft, there’s now even more of Microsoft inside the management and steering team. He may say this about OSI now, but he still sucks up to OSI people (even Phipps, who signed the anti-rms letter) in emails. Yes, he quotes these emails himself. Roy's employer for nearly a decade has "Open Source" in the name. They partner with Red Hat and Canonical and have worked with FSFE and lobbied the FSF. Roy should REALLY disclose this properly, as he pretends to do journalism. Unlike the crap the FSF subjects the board to, this is a REAL ethical obligation that Roy is shirking. > “Joining the board as a Director is Justin Colannino, who was appointed by the board in January. Justin joins us with a decade of experience representing clients at the intersection of free and open source software communities and for-profit enterprises. He is Director of Developer Policy and Counsel for GitHub Right, and I'm the one who (while writing for Techrights) went through the entire GNU project and found out how many projects are using GitHub for development. Roy has DOWNPLAYED the research and the numbers. But Microsoft GNU doesn't matter to him, only Microsoft OSI. It needs to be said that I've been campaigning consistently AGAINST Open Source for more than a decade. Most of that time, Roy has been PAID by Open Source. He doesn't need to defend OSI, OSI is defunct like he says. The real Open Source organisation now is the FSF-- it was their mission to overthrow it. > When it comes to advocacy, the OSI has been dead for years. Facts are a wonderful anchor for bullshit. > The board now has a Director who is clearly hostile; those are people who are attacking Open Source and Software Freedom (GitHub is an attack on both; it is also an attack on communities and on Git itself (EEE)). But the FSF does nothing about this. > “OSI is more than dead, it is malignant.” Don’t waste even a single dollar on it. Microsoft already subsidises this front group Except for funding, the FSF is not different than this except in degree. Roy himself said that free github hosting is practically a bribe. GNU uses it. But at times like this someone can always pretend that FSF and GNU are separate-- yet another half-truth that misses the point. > Sure, it calls itself the “Linux Foundation”, but that doesn’t mean it really cares about Linux (look who runs it!) Knauth is also a Github supporter. But calling it "free software", while the better of two terms, no longer is a guarantee for advocates or the FSF at this point. The TACTICS of the FSF are open source now. The rhetoric of LiePlanet is increasingly open source. Roy is content to focus on an organisation that he openly admits is defunct, to draw fire (and warranted criticism) of the FSF, which is under occupation. This makes perfect sense from the standpoint of open source: once you've moved your base of operations from OSI to the FSF, why NOT use the old base to draw fire away from the new one? OSI acts like a shell corporation. The FSF is turning into one. Techrights doesn't care. It only wants pageviews. It turns on a dime back and forth, running the typical mass media tactical treadmill of OH NO, IT'S FINE. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
