09.05.20
Gemini version available ♊︎Big Money Can Do Big Damage to Membership-Dependent Organisations (Which Should Remain Accountable to Members, Not Big Sponsors)
More than enough to cover all salaries for the entire year
A breakdown of the finances
Summary: How $250,000 for the Software Freedom Conservancy and a million bucks for Stallman’s FSF may have changed the obligation to supporters (in favour of high-profile sponsors, instead; even Microsoft in the former case)
ACCORDING TO Wikipedia, Pineapple Fund “was announced with a post on Reddit on December 14, 2017. The individual used the pseudonym “Pine”, and explained that “My aims, goals, and motivations in life have nothing to do with … being the mega rich. So I’m doing something else: donating the majority of my bitcoins to charitable causes”. The individual behind the fund has remained pseudonymous.”
“Stallman was pressured by the SFC (and SFC people inside the FSF) to resign the following year, apparently based on deception and misrepresentation of the situation.”We alluded to that earlier on in relation to the “$1 million donation from Pineapple Fund,” to quote the FSF. The same year SFC took money from Microsoft (for the first time) it also received $250,000 from Pineapple Fund, a quarter of what the FSF received and 5 times as much as OpenBSD. “Shortly after the fund’s announcement earlier this month,” SFC said, “volunteers and Conservancy staff members applied for its support. That application was granted this week.”
Months later Pineapple Fund vanished. Months beforehand there was this interview, which focused on mental health. These mysterious and anonymous donations apparently came with no strings attached to them; based on our research, nobody really knows the identity of the donor (except hearsay) and it would be misguided (and perhaps unfair) to make guesses. But there’s lingering suspicion that when the FSF bagged this money (maybe SFC alike) priorities changed somewhat. Supporters who were individuals (members) mattered less and sponsors with 7-figure sums became more attractive. Bitcoin, as Stallman likes to say, does not protect anonymity; it’s good at all sorts of things, but not at privacy. As we noted hours ago, Stallman does not believe there was anything fishy about that payment; he told that to his confidants at the FSF. If a payment is made anonymously (to all, not just to some), it won’t have a corrosive effect, except perhaps making an organisation less dependent on its pertinent members. Stallman was pressured by the SFC (and SFC people inside the FSF) to resign the following year, apparently based on deception and misrepresentation of the situation. It was an intense siege by those looking to overthrow the founder. Based on the financial disclosures from the SFC (we published their latest IRS form last month; direct link [PDF]), $250,000 was enough to cover all the salaries that year. The money given to the SFC was in turn bolstering those who undermined the FSF, the bigger recipient of Pineapple Fund’s jackpot. Funny how those things work… █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA