Why does the FSF keep fostering people who actively work to 'cancel' Richard M. Stallman (e.g. Molly de Blanc as recently as this year) while suppressing speakers who may or may not publicly express support for Richard M. Stallman (RMS)? Moreover, why are such people being rewarded with the highest honours? Yet again. Giving an award to the person who ousted RMS from his position (from within the Board)? We were warned months ago that this might happen. They've already done that with OpenBSD (Theo de Raadt), Microsoft's 'Icaza mole', the Google Troll... and now Mr. Kuhn. No kidding!

"Have pro bono Public Relations advisors suggested dishing some more dirt on the founder's tombstone?"Kuhn would be the (at least) fourth RMS basher to be awarded by the FSF, which was founded by RMS more than 35 years ago. Can't they see or foresee the message that it sends out to FSF supporters like myself? More recently Kuhn's organisation raised money from Microsoft and sold them keynotes in an event about something Microsoft is attacking (copyleft). How does that help software freedom? There are many other issues associated with the SFC, as we've been noting for a couple of years. The person whom the SFC sent to act as interim GM of the OSI notified people late on a Friday -- i.e. one day ago -- that the OSI's elections had been compromised. That person too was awarded by the FSF (then proceeded to raise money from Microsoft two years in a row; now running an organisation whose purpose is to attack or distract from software freedom, promoting GitHub and openwashing instead). Have pro bono Public Relations advisors suggested dishing some more dirt on the founder's tombstone? He's still alive and well, and he's eager to come back to the driver's seat. These people want a ship unmanned, or without a sufficiently charismatic leader. This creates a vacuum monopolies are ready to fill, selling us prisons, instead. ⬆