Against the licence of Linux itself? They treat Free software like some 'hippie' thing, leaving the original developers institutionally homeless and without representation of any kind (except theoretic/symbolic).

Summary: We continue to see additional evidence which serves towards reinforcing our view that the so-called 'Linux' Foundation is actually hostile towards many things that are associated with Linux (unlike those looking to exploit/hijack Linux for proprietary ends)

THE freedom of all software is under attack. So-called 'permissive' licences are advocated by proprietary software giants, looking mostly to exploit and control projects. That much should not be surprising. It's a widely known fact. Our debates with Microsoft managers have made it abundantly clear that Microsoft still isn't tolerating the GPL and it has this 'offshoot' called Black Duck (there have been several more since it was acquired), whose management came from Microsoft and admitted that its original goal was to discourage GPL adoption. Black Duck is so toxic that Simon Phipps kicked these people out; he ejected them from OSI and rejected their money, whereas Jim Zemlin welcomed them. What does that say about him?

"Black Duck is so toxic that Simon Phipps kicked these people out; he ejected them from OSI and rejected their money, whereas Jim Zemlin welcomed them."About a week ago we learned there was an article on the way that related to things we had published (not about Black Duck; FOSS Force really ought to write something about Black Duck's history). Earlier this week it finally came out; it was Bruce Byfield's thought-provoking piece about the Linux Foundation. Byfield notes that the "Linux Foundation has not only accepted Microsoft as a Platinium member, but awarded it two seats on the board of directors: one representing Microsoft directly, and the other representing the Microsoft-owned GitHub."

That's not indirectly, that is Microsoft directly. The new PR trick is for companies to pretend to be smaller than they are (Alphabet Google does this too, e.g. YouTube).

Notice how they get more seats over time. It's all about money.

"So the chief technical person of the LF, which has Microsoft et al in key positions, publicly spreads GPL FUD, citing Microsoft proxies as his source."Also, remember that the the Vice Chair (of the Board) worked for Microsoft and there are Microsoft developers in key positions, cushioned by Greg K-H, who himself worked indirectly for Microsoft (or on Microsoft projects) while on Novell/Microsoft payroll.

The interesting part -- to me at least -- is in the comments/discussion. For those who don't know, Chris Aniszczyk is "currently a CTO at the Linux Foundation" (according to him). Notice what he wrote.

So the chief technical person of the LF, which has Microsoft et al in key positions, publicly spreads GPL FUD, citing Microsoft proxies as his source. LF staff is now joining Microsoft in attacking the GPL, even in public. Not just any staff but chief staff of the LF, echoing Microsoft-connected (WhiteSource/Black Duck) FUD against the GPL. It's consistent with some stuff we saw in the past and commenters such as "Mike" respond:

> “Does the FSF or SFC have corporate member or developer seats or just individual seats only? It seems you are only hearing one side fo the story that’s inaccurate.”

That’s pretty ironic considering what the Linux Foundation did to its community representation. The Linux Foundation tells only the corporate side of the story. Like any corporation, trusting them with your well-being is a stupid thing to do.

"Mike" responds to Bruce Byfield as well:

The *relative* decline of GPL and copyleft is only natural when viewed in terms of volume of code being produced.

There is far more corporate funded code than ever before – and that code is almost universally stamped with ‘permissive’ licenses. Lots more open-washing today than ever.

There are plenty of new copyleft projects out there, but that doesn’t fit the corporate driven narrative.

Licence popularity-wise, Microsoft proxies (WhiteSource/Black Duck) are mostly measuring things based on Microsoft GitHub (it is a proprietary trap for corporate exploitation). We've complained about this for half a decade or longer. But even other Microsoft-sponsored 'analysts' do the same thing, treating anything that Microsoft does not control as though it does not exist and ought not be counted. Should it be surprising that copyleft-leaning projects (e.g. GNU) aren't interested in the proprietary trap which is GitHub? That's like measuring collective societal wealth based only on who shops at Hugo Boss stores/outlets. The picture one sees is distorted by the narrowness of the target audience/client base.

"Licence popularity-wise, Microsoft proxies (WhiteSource/Black Duck) are mostly measuring things based on Microsoft GitHub (it is a proprietary trap for corporate exploitation)."Mike's replies make sense. And Chris then responds to Chris, more or less nailing it, arguing that the LF "treats desktop Linux users, as well as users of open source software on Linux and other operating systems, as orphans..."

We've said something similar several times in the past.

Here's the full comment:

To me the point is that the Linux Foundation is doing nothing whatsoever to advance desktop Linux, and treats desktop Linux users, as well as users of open source software on Linux and other operating systems, as orphans, even though they were the first boosters of Linux development. At LF, if it’s not software being developed for commercial and enterprise users, or if it’s designed to be used on a desktop or laptop instead of in a data center or industrial device, it doesn’t exist.

Bruce Byfield did note: "A more cynical interpretation is that, from its very start, the Linux Foundation has been a slow coup, gradually usurping an authority to which it has no right. Ask me on alternate days which one I believe."

"This may not be a deliberate thing, but unwittingly the LF let entryism be 'welcomed' or 'tolerated' in the Board, not foreseeing the negative effects on the 'pragmatic' and PR front."Byfield also mentioned how he had lost his job at Linux.com. Less than a year ago the same thing happened all over again (the LF fired all staff and editors without as much as a prior notice). The site has not been the same since. It's an embarrassment and it is pretty dormant.

What Byfield says about the "slow coup" makes sense. This may not be a deliberate thing, but unwittingly the LF let entryism be 'welcomed' or 'tolerated' in the Board, not foreseeing the negative effects on the 'pragmatic' and PR front. What good is an institution which does not guard its mission statement and spirit and only counts money, even from its biggest opponents? ⬆