In Support of Richard Stallman Normalizing Truth, Reason, Dialogue: Introduction

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux at 1:54 am by Guest Editorial Team

Published on April 5, 2021.

Last updated April 9, 2021.

Reproduced with permission. Licence: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 4.0). Original Stallman Support.

False accusations were made against Richard Stallman in September 2019. Although others pointed out the mistakes, the stage had been set for a cascade of defamatory reactions that followed and spread like wildfire. This was fueled by misquotes and distortion of events in mainstream headlines, blogs, and social media, leading ultimately to Stallman’s resignation from his positions at MIT and the FSF.

A new wave of attacks was launched when the reinstatement of Richard Stallman in the FSF Board of Directors was announced on March 21, 2021.

Free software and free culture advocates around the world were outraged at the injustice. Members of the community at large felt hurt and looked for ways to voice their pain and repair the damage caused.

Some published accurate articles, objectively and meticulously showcasing the facts. Many others wrote short comments in blogs and news websites pointing out the errors that were being swiftly propagated by copy paste “authors.” Still others sent letters of concern to the FSF.

A petition[1] was launched to condemn bad press and demand apologies to Stallman from journalists who knowingly or incompetently spread false information. It was to no avail. Journalists never corrected their erroneous headlines, let alone apologize. The petition is now stale (and it requires JavaScript.) Better to sign the letter of support.

We have become sadly familiar with the terms “misinformation and disinformation” and the need to critically examine the agendas and mindsets motivating these campaigns as well as check the facts behind their assertions. To our collective social woe, disinformation succeeds because so many people care deeply about injustice but do not take the time to study the facts before passing along or acting on disinformation.

Because many of those who attack Stallman —or even supporters who speak up for him— may only have a partial notion of who he is and all that he has contributed towards a more fair and just society, we start our story there. Who is Richard Stallman?

References and Notes

  1. https://www.change.org/p/journalists-to-stop-the-persecution-of-stallman-and-apologize-publicly

Lunduke: Stallman & The FSF Respond To The Mob!

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux at 1:44 am by Guest Editorial Team

Summary: A video response in support of RMS


Breaking News: Campinos to Appear Before the Legals Affairs Committee of the European Parliament on Monday 12 April

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:57 pm by Guest Editorial Team

From the original document: [PDF]


Summary: “Some MEPs have been briefed about ongoing governance deficits at the EPO, in particular the lack of GDPR compliance and the sell-out of "digital sovereignty" to Microsoft, but it remains to be seen whether or not they will dare to bring these issues up during the hearing.”

THE EPO President António Campinos is scheduled to appear before the Legals Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (known as the JURI Committee) on Monday 12 April.

The part of the session dealing with the EPO is scheduled to take place some time after 15:15 Central European Time (14:15 UK Time) and should be streamed live on the website of the European Parliament.

“…it is not clear what exactly this “exchange of views” is supposed to cover.”According to the draft agenda, the purpose of the hearing is an “Exchange of views with European Patent Office (EPO)”. However, it is not clear what exactly this “exchange of views” is supposed to cover.

The last time the JURI Committee of the European Parliament took an interest in the EPO was back in 2015 when the UPC project looked like it was ready to take off.

On that occasion, in May 2015, a delegation of MEPS from the JURI Committee went on a junket to visit the EPO headquarters in Munich where they were wined and dined by Benoît Battistelli and "Mrs UPC" Margot Fröhlinger.

Of course the MEPs didn’t make any effort to speak to EPO staff or to the Staff Union SUEPO so all they got was one-sided PR spin from Team Battistelli.

Some time later in June 2015, Battistelli appeared before the JURI Committee. (warning: epo.org link)

“Some MEPs have been briefed about ongoing governance deficits at the EPO, in particular the lack of GDPR compliance and the sell-out of “digital sovereignty” to Microsoft, but it remains to be seen whether or not they will dare to bring these issues up during the hearing.”Battistelli was given a very easy ride by the MEPs most of whom didn’t appear to have much of a clue about what was going on at the EPO.

The only critical question came from the Greek MEP, Kostas Chrysogonos, who asked about the state of labour relations at the EPO.

Battistelli just brushed this aside with his usual bluff and bluster. A recording of that hearing is available on the website of the European Parliament.

Battistelli appeared for a further hearing before the JURI Committee on 23 March 2017 [PDF] to report on “The Unitary Patent: state of play”. Once again Battistelli was given a very easy ride by the MEPs.


So it will be interesting to see what happens on Monday when Campinos appears before the JURI Committee. Will it be business as usual or is somebody finally going to start asking the questions that need to be asked?

Some MEPs have been briefed about ongoing governance deficits at the EPO, in particular the lack of GDPR compliance and the sell-out of "digital sovereignty" to Microsoft, but it remains to be seen whether or not they will dare to bring these issues up during the hearing.


Software Freedom Matters More Than Ever and We Need to Grasp the Misconceptions About It

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, Microsoft at 12:17 pm by Guest Editorial Team

Video download link

Summary: A long ramble about the situation we’re currently in and why the fight for Software Freedom must go on; we’re winning on many fronts (GNU/Linux already dominates a lot of sectors), losing on some, and that’s why software monopolies (current and past digital/tech "masters") are increasingly frightened and resort to irrational and self-harming attacks; they’re failing to imprison every citizen on this planet (too many dissenters and objectors), collectively rendering us digital “slaves” (a term they'd rather ban so as to limit the conversation's remit)

THE Software Freedom Movement or the Free Software Movement (capitalised) will soon turn 40, i.e. older than me. The term “Software Freedom Movement” helps emphasise that it’s about freedom, not price (otherwise ambiguous in the English language). It was created or at least pioneered/defined by an MIT scientist who was about 30 at the time. He’ll turn 70 just over a year from now. He’s under attack by a bunch of bullies backed by a corporate mob and defamatory corporate media (owned by those same corporations or partly funded by them).

“People are easily being carried away by hype and buzzwords (“clown computing”, “smart” etc.) and some are easily bamboozled or even incited against those who speak about the threats.”In this video I attempt to explain some recent events, how I personally got introduced to the Software Freedom Movement (or Free Software Movement, sometimes abbreviated FSM, led by the FSF). To examine the issues we’re nowadays dealing with I turn to the “Critic’s Free Software Dictionary” of figosdev, who wrote many articles for us.

People are easily being carried away by hype and buzzwords (“clown computing”, “smart” etc.) and some are easily bamboozled or even incited against those who speak about the threats. The real threat isn’t that “guy with a beard” but those who vilify him. As Dave Lane put it recently: “the real existential threat to Free Software isn’t the make-up of the FSF governance board. It’s US multinational corporations funding legal reports encouraging companies to shun Copyleft licensed software, calling it “too risky” for business use. (of course, if you want to see a real legal minefield, take a gander at any proprietary EULA… if you can find one – they tend to be completely hidden). Also: the shade thrown by Github and MSFT on Copyleft at every opportunity.”

We’ve always been under attack by Microsoft (the video mentions the Halloween Documents), but those attacks are becoming more visible in recent years, even if they disguise the attacks with words like "love".


Microsoft: Nationalism As A Service (NaaS)

Posted in Deception, Microsoft at 10:41 am by Guest Editorial Team

Article by Mitchel Lewis, reprinted with permission

Nadella MAGA

There’s currency in appearing progressive and woke in this day and age and manufacturing this appearance is body of work that all PR people are tasked with. But it’s important to remember it doesn’t take a PR specialist to tell the truth; anyone can do that. Generally speaking, PR is a critical component of corporate Machiavellianism and PR people are skilled in the art of manipulating and bludgeoning the truth to polish a public image, lying if you will, and it’s wise to assume that the inverse is true of whatever PR says because of this; hence why so many already take what PR says with a grain of salt. And this is especially the case when PR specialists are employed by monopolies.

“Unsurprisingly, anyone that has worked at Microsoft can confirm that they operate in an authoritarian or mafia-esque manner when evaluating their structures and hierarchy from the inside.”With this in mind though along with the fact that FAAMG monopolies (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google) are perpetually trying to establish themselves as egalitarian entities filled to the brim with employees that are as progressive as they are diverse via exhaustive PR campaigns, I’m forced to question whether the inverse is true of this as well and if there is a plurality of conservatives, incels, qanon followers, magats, proud boys, and the like, losers if you will, within their ranks instead. So let’s pick on Microsoft like always and see if my PR Inversa hypothesis holds up.

In order to advance this armchair hypothesis of mine into the realm of theory though, I feel that it’s important to first highlight that if these companies were brimming with egalitarianism and diverse progressives throughout their ranks as they claim in their mission, value statements, and fluff articles then we would see ample evidence of them actually behaving in a more progressive fashion. Among other things, we’d also see added transparency and a track record of being more receptive to progressive ideas and the like too, but none of these emergent properties of progressivism seem to immediately evident upon further inspection.

Unsurprisingly, anyone that has worked at Microsoft can confirm that they operate in an authoritarian or mafia-esque manner when evaluating their structures and hierarchy from the inside. Of course, some internal employees may disagree with this, but few can recall the last time that they voted on anything meaningful instead of simply being told what to do. I spent 5 years there and I don’t recall a vote about anything substantial.

“Much like any criminal enterprise, transparency and speaking to the press are heavily frowned upon to say the very least.”Not only does Microsoft have a strict and authoritarian chain of command which rarely gets broken and meets anyone that falls out of line with an iron fist, but their very structure also functions as a hedge against unions and seldom have to resort to traditional union-busting tactics because of this. As a result, FAAMG monopolies are virtually union-proof with their workforce diversified through a coctail of internal employees and vendors distributed through countless contingent staffing firms which function as organized labor shelters. If you think unionizing one company with endless resources and the wealthiest people in the world running them is hard, then imagine unionizing 100 such companies simultaneously; basically impossible. None of which lends credence to their progressive narrative given the importance of labor unions to said narrative. Strike 1.

Much like any criminal enterprise, transparency and speaking to the press are heavily frowned upon to say the very least. Whistleblowers and people pushing for changes on ethical grounds are swiftly removed from their ranks like melanomas while PR people are the only ones allowed to speak to the press. Everything is on a need-to-know basis, password protected, encrypted, and wrapped in a bow of security clearance. And they seem to have a penchant for recruiting from the CIA, NSA, DOD, and the like; they’re the only people who can obtain the clearances to manage the JEDI and other dedicated government infrastructure. Heck, with Frank Shaw, their head of PR, being a former marine and graduate of the Department of Defense Information School (DINFOS), it’s safe to assume that Microsoft is leveraging military grade PR tactics too. And upon accepting this, it’s safe to assume that whoever is structuring these monopolies is more influenced by The Art of War and Mein Kampf than anything that Noam Chomsky has written. Strike 2.

Microsoft race

Further and when evaluating their employees on their individual merits, trends emerge and these companies do not appear to be the GAP commercial that they claim to be either as any quick trip through their weird open offices will reveal. Instead of the multicultural utopia we’re often sold by PR people and their stenographers throughout the media, it’s often a binary of white, often American, and Asian men hiding behind an outlier rainbow of tokenized PoC, women, and foreigners; almost like some weird form of corporate blackface. Some working there certainly think that they’re hard-line Democrats, but there are many kinds of delusion and it’s hard to be a democrat while working at a monopoly. Nice try, but Strike 3.

“When is the last time you’ve seen Microsoft or any other tech monopoly lobby for better worker protections like a group of actual liberals would do?”Their ranks are also clearly divided politically, just like the rest of the country, but their desire for blind loyalty leads them to favor those prone to zeal, idolatry, and herd think, loyalty if you will, during the candidate selection process which these aforementioned losers are vulnerable to falling prey to. Meanwhile, corporate whistleblowers and people deemed disloyal tend to be blacklisted from all of these companies regardless of their competencies.

While their various PACs indeed funnel money to both sides, they seem to funnel a disproportionate amount to right-leaning candidates and authoritarian causes that expand the use of predatory surveillance, AI, and right-wing agendas; even after the presidential election and the January 6th riot. And that’s only when they aren’t lobbying for stripping employees of even more of their rights, benefits, and earning potential.

When is the last time you’ve seen Microsoft or any other tech monopoly lobby for better worker protections like a group of actual liberals would do? Never? Unsurprisingly, you can often find them lobbying against the best interests of individuals and the societal whole like your average loser, almost as if it’s some emergent property of having a plurality of said losers throughout their ranks or something. Strike 4.


And still to no surprise, you can even find countless instances of monopolies harboring these loyal losers throughout their ranks if you know where to look. At Microsoft, they have internal message boards on Yammer and distribution lists in Outlook/Exchange that are dedicated to these aforementioned losers, their delusions, their paranoia, and their resultant conspiracy theories. At one point in time even had an internal gun club (msgun) that was 20–30,000 members strong distribution list (almost all gun nuts are fervent Trump supporters mind you); only removing said groups when their existence is revealed so as not to threaten their elaborate progressive narrative. In 2000 alone though, msgun donated $100,000 to the NRA which Microsoft matched and they only got bigger since then.

“Unsurprisingly, you can often find them lobbying against the best interests of individuals and the societal whole like your average loser, almost as if it’s some emergent property of having a plurality of said losers throughout their ranks or something.”Most recently in late March though, Microsoft deleted another wannabe 8chan board on their internal Yammer site, presumably due to looming outrage, which resulted in an incel engineer meltdown that later digressed into them trash-talking me of all people for reasons that escape me; as if a bunch of white nationalists disliking me wasn’t a compliment or something. While flattering after all this time, that’s strike 5.

Adding insult to injury, Github, a subsidiary of Microsoft recently fired a Jewish employee for warning their peers about nazis on January 6th while turning a blind eye to employees saying that Nazis gave the jews free healthcare; only offering to reinstate the fired employee after the atrocity of it all was made public. Strike 6.

“None of which should come as a surprise though upon considering that Kathleen Hogan, their chief of people, is a Harvard grad of all things; you know that place with the stellar ethics record whose graduates aren’t consistently destroying the world from every possible angle and ruining work for everyone. Strike 7.”But wait there’s more. With a plurality of antiquated and deranged men like this dominating your organization, it often goes overlooked that it requires a gaggle of bonafide Stepford wives to comprise their HR department to keep these dimwits installed throughout their ranks. These people don’t just have a habit of voting against their best interests, they often act against their best interests throughout their lives. And keeping the loser brigade of cement feathered birds employed while militantly chasing their opposition and victims out of the company is a full-time job that Microsoft pays handsomely for. None of which should come as a surprise though upon considering that Kathleen Hogan, their chief of people, is a Harvard grad of all things; you know that place with the stellar ethics record whose graduates aren’t consistently destroying the world from every possible angle and ruining work for everyone. Strike 7.

Despite these losers being mainstream with their conspiracies, ignorances, pathologies, and degraded capacities which most definitely limit their ability to function at the largest software company in the world/only software company left in the world, they still have the utmost job security without even having to apply for ADA protections that any other delusional demographic would have to obtain in order to keep their job in such a privileged and secure environment. Something tells me that an progressive organization wouldn’t be so accommodating of such demographics despite their obvious mental illness. If anything, they’d likely be put on medical leave, forced into an independent medical evaluation, and fired if they refused. Strike 8.

Microsoft ICE

As if this were not bad enough, you can also see all of these FAAMG monopolies sycophantically competing against each other to outfit low brow government agencies with their services and wares like it’s their führer. So far as I can tell, there is nothing that our government can do that would compel FAAMG to withdraw or restrict service to any of its entities. For example and even though using Microsoft products to harm or endanger children is expressly forbidden in their terms of service, you can’t find a branch of the KKK…err DHS that isn’t standardized on their ecosystem despite their blatant and consistent human rights violations. So far as I can ascertain, ICE could be eating immigrant babies on live TV every night and Microsoft probably still wouldn’t flinch at offering them their suite of productivity tools and services; the same goes for GitHub.

ii. Don’t engage in any activity that exploits, harms, or threatens to harm children. — Microsoft Services Agreement

SSO configured for Office 365 by Newsmax and Fox News.

Microsoft also doesn’t seem to take issue with offering services to misleading propagandists such as Fox News or Newsmax just the same as agencies mentioned above. Presumably, they’re also standardized on Windows and Office on top of Office 365 as there’s little to no draw to Office 365 without Windows and Office necessitating its demand, rendering Microsoft analogous to their central nervous system. Strike 9. For what it’s worth, Google hosts email for several right-wing propaganda sites too.

All said, this progressive narrative perpetuated by Microsoft, FAAMG, or any other monopoly for that matter is unequivocally false. You just don’t have to spend billions of dollars to tell the truth; it’s the lies, spin, and confusion that costs you. Not to mention the whole thing about it being impossible to be an egalitarian and progressive entity and monopoly simultaneously, let alone a monopoly functioning like gasoline on an authoritarian bonfire or a megaphone in the hand of a populist like Microsoft. But that’s the whole point of propaganda, to get you to believe nonsense like this and it works.

Talking through both sides of your mouth is a thing, especially among the wealthiest of us and their companies. This Machiavellian approach of seeming good but being evil is the standard throughout FAAMG, Microsoft, or otherwise, just as it is throughout the rest of the world. But even this really isn’t news as this is already the default assumption of many throughout the tech space albeit on its fringes. Seemingly, the only people with the audacity to lock horns with this default assumption of PR being paid liars or the reality of there being a plurality of loser white nationalists throughout the ranks of monopoly tech are those that have their livelihoods entrenched with said monopolies; employees and journalists alike; anything for Tesla though am I right?

Tucker Microsoft

But if you’re waiting for a bunch of 6 figure nationalists, supremacists, and monopolists to identify as such or confirm any of this then you had better pack a lunch. One of the many maladies of ignorance-fueled delusions is that they aren’t self-actualized; actions made in ignorance are involuntary. These delusions are why nationalists, supremacists, and monopolists seldom identify as nationalists, and supremacists, and monopolists and give the shocked tucker carlson confused face whenever it’s implied instead. Although there are many kinds of delusion, they all defend themselves the same way and you can see the hallmarks of these defense mechanisms in their petulance and primitive rhetoric in response to such realities just like every other delusional person that’s forced to look in the mirror.

“But Mitchel! We have an Indian iMMIGRANT for a CEO! We can’t be a company of white nationalists! PWned yOu LIb!”Cum-brained Redmond Incel

Ah yes, who can forget dear Satya; that guy. One problem with monopolies is that their founders are often replaced by ineffectual figureheads while slowly deferring decision-making power and rule to their corporate counsel. Past a certain point, understanding acquisitions, managing public images, and navigating legal grey areas become more important to monopolies than actual leadership and engineering qualities at their highest ranks; whether that’s requisite of becoming a monopoly or a consequence of becoming a monopoly is irrelevant to this discussion. That said, it’s safe to say that Brad Smith is the true head of Microsoft while Satya merely functions like some sort of figurehead or corporate Bindi; corporate bindi-face?

Smith at Microsoft

Who do you think kept Satya out of the limelight and under wraps after his flub at the Grace Hopper Convention where he told a room of women to trust the system instead of asking for raises and advancement? Whose department do you think curates Satya’s mailbox, maximizing his plausible deniability, and keeping him in an information bubble where he can pretend to be a detached ideologue when it suits him? Who do you think works on his image with fluff articles, get ghost-written books, and all matter of cushy savior propaganda; none of which existed in any capacity prior to being named CEO? Who do you think has HR keeping these people installed in the company while running out their opposition? Hell, who do you think bailed them out of their antitrust woes? Why do you think Satya is never surprised by interview questions and is only thrown softballs? Brad Smith baby, that’s who and why.

While the CEO position has changed hands several times, Brad Smith’s role in the company has only increased exponentially and is to the point where he is both wearing the pants and leading the dance while Satya is wearing the skirt and doing what he’s told. Brad is so powerful that he seems to have a millionaire for an indentured servant in Satya. Similar is probably true of Sundar Pichai and Google but I cannot speak from firsthand experience. As much as they try to run on their merit, the reality is that no one even knew who they were before being name CEO nor do they have any real background in the duties required of a CEO at this scale for that matter; those qualities aren’t requirements of figureheads.

Microsoft leadership

When measured by his actions and history, Satya is just as bought into their corporate culture as anyone else. After all, Satya has almost a 30-year long-established history of not questioning a single thing that Microsoft has ever done, profiting immensely from their terrible behavior in the 90s and 2000s. Yet you expect him to change everything now after he’s been hyper-rewarded for this behavior for decades and at an age where we’re at peak change aversion?

We seem to like to forget that Satya comes from a culture known for its caste systems and was a beneficiary of these caste systems due to being born into a high up caste with a father working in the Indian Administrative Service. It’s no coincidence that he gravitates to, thrives in, and perpetuates a caste system here in corporate America too; it’s what he knows. The only problem with said caste systems, Microsoft, India, or otherwise is that it isn’t the cream that rises to their top ranks; quite the opposite. Satya is no exception and neither is Brad Smith, hence why both need so much PR in the first place.

Meanwhile, the notion of Satya being some transcendent guru who fixed Microsoft on day one because he’s an Indian is actually quite racist in itself. As if Indian men, especially executives or monopolies, can’t be morally bankrupt or something even though there are plenty of examples of this in India and everywhere else in the world. You can’t find a philosopher within their ranks yet you think they’ll put a legit Hindu in their top spot? Get real. As if a proper Hindu would work with and arm the likes of ICE, CBP, DHS, CIA, NSA, DOD, Fox News, and News Max like it’s their religion, let alone work for world-destroying FAAMG monopoly? Again, there are many kinds of delusion and PR Inversa is still holding true.

In summary, it should be abundantly clear that the inverse is true of whatever a PR department happens to be peddling, especially from the PR department of the preeminent monopoly of the Information Age that Microsoft is or any of the FAAMG monopolies. This includes their narratives about being egalitarian, progressive, left-leaning, diverse, inclusionary, ethical, feminist, and humanitarian organizations. It’s all bullshit, hogwash, and a corporate Santa Clause. [sic]

What makes more sense? Microsoft being a monopoly where their PR people don’t spin the truth that’s full of left-wing progressives but coincidentally provides its fleet of services to what can best be described as the axis of evil/the antithesis of everything that progressive values stand for? Or Microsoft being a company with a plurality of white nationalists happily serving white nationalists causes as consistently as the planetary motions while spending billions to present itself as being seen as the inverse of this; no differently than Theranos or these insolvent gig economy scams have done in the past? I mean, where do you think these aspiring monopolies learned this behavior?

Army of Microsoft

Let’s not forget that Machiavellian corporations are a thing. Corporate blackface is a thing. Figureheads are also a thing, especially in the absence of founders, hence Satya’s position as CEO. And contrary to Microsoft’s progressive narrative, they are most definitely brimming with white nationalists, white supremacists, proud boys, incels, conservatives, magats, frat boys, NRA goons, and their tokenized sympathizers at the moment which confirms my PR Inversa hypothesis and advances it to the realm of theory; none of which should be surprising.

Microsoft Nazi


Microsoft GitHub Does It Again

Posted in Deception, Humour, Microsoft at 7:16 pm by Guest Editorial Team

April 1st, 1:00AM

GitHub takedown
Screenshot taken April 1st, 1:00AM BST

Summary: Richard Stallman’s dignity is defended, at last, by Microsoft

In recent months a group has started a petition on GitHub to pressure the Free Software Foundation to not reinstate its founder, Richard Stallman, as chair. The petition has been widely recognised as being based on false accusations against Mr Stallman (e.g. evidence of defamation by cyberbullies), resulting in Microsoft, owner of GitHub, deciding to close down the petition’s GitHub account, citing “cyberbullying” as the reason. Microsoft issued a statement explaining that it will not tolerate its platform being used for bullying and wanted to protect Mr Stallman’s human rights.

Defend Richard Stallman!

Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux at 11:55 am by Guest Editorial Team


  1. english
  2. عربى
  3. বাঙালি
  4. ελληνικά
  5. español
  6. suomi
  7. français
  8. עברית
  9. hrvatski
  10. italiano
  11. 日本語
  12. 한국어
  13. nederlands
  14. polski
  15. português
  16. русский
  17. Türkçe
  18. Tiếng Việt
  19. 简体中文

By Leah Rowe

I support freedom of speech. Translations wanted for this article. I want this news article to be available in as many languages as possible. Download the Markdown file here: rms.markdown and then translate it into your language. Send the translated file to

2 years ago, known Thought Criminal Richard M Stallman was falsely accused of defending rape in an Orwellian smear campaign, orchestrated by mainstream media at the behest of proprietary software vendors. 36 years fighting for your digital freedom, cancelled. It was so vicious that he resigned from his post as president of the Free Software Foundation. The FSF did nothing to protect or defend him. However, you can defend him!

On 21 March 2021, FSF board of directors re-instated Richard Stallman. In response, the media started a new smear campaign. A petition was created, calling for the forceful removal of RMS and the entire FSF board of directors. RMS has been wrongly accused of sexism, transphobia, ableism and a whole host of things intended to discredit him. Do not listen to any of it. Richard Stallman’s political notes and articles paint the picture of a man who has staunchly campaigned against bigotry in all its forms!

In response, we, the Free software movement, started our own petition. We wish for RMS to remain in his post, and for the FSF to hold their ground. We call for the FSF to defend Richard Stallman’s honour and his legacy. Richard Stallman is a human being, whose right to free speech was heavily suppressed. We must demonstrate our support of him to the FSF, loudly and clearly.

If you support Free Software, believe in freedom of speech, freedom of community and social justice (true social justice, where a person is treated with dignity and not cancelled just for their beliefs), sign your name here:


The opposing petition calling for Richard’s removal will not be linked here, because it is important not to strengthen it. Boosting the search engine rankings of our opposition would only help them attack RMS. Similarly, their smear campaigns will not be linked here directly, only condemned!

Instructions for how to sign your name are on that page. If you represent a project, please put that in brackets and state your position. For instance, if you are John Doe and your project is named Foobar Libre, write John Doe (Foobar Libre developer) or e.g. John Doe (Foobar Libre founder and lead developer). If you are an FSF member (e.g. associate member), put that in brackets too.

If you are a member of a project/organisation that signed the anti-RMS list, it is especially important to state that you are from said project when signing the pro-RMS list. You should also talk to people in your project or organisation, and try to persuade them to change their minds!

In addition to signing your name, if you’re in a software project, get your project to officially come out in support of Richard! He needs every bit of support we can get. We, the Free Software movement, as activists must lend him all of our strength!

Don’t be fooled. If a Free Software project is on the anti-RMS list, that just means the leadership implemented said decision. It says nothing of the individuals inside said organisation.

Please also email the FSF and tell them you support Richard! The FSF’s contact details are here: https://www.fsf.org/about/contact/

Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software

Our opponent’s true target is not Richard Stallman; their real aim is to destroy the FSF by thoroughly infiltrating it (like they already have with organisations like the OSI and Linux Foundation). These people even started an online petition calling for RMS’s forceful removal and for the entire board of directors at the FSF to resign from their posts. This is clearly an attempt at a coup to overthrow the FSF! Out of fear, many known Free Software projects joined in on the anti-RMS witch hunt because they did not want to be cancelled either. The list that attacks Richard has Microsoft, Google, OSI, Linux Foundation, Gnome Foundation and Ethical Source people on it! These people oppose Free Software ideologically (even if some of them do produce free software sometimes, for reasons other than promoting freedom) and many of them have actively sought to destroy it for years! How dare these people claim to represent us!.

The letter opposing RMS talks the talk, but it does not walk the walk. The people on that list do not represent us! If you do see actual Free Software developers on the list, please talk to them. Do not be hateful or spiteful, just talk to them: tell them that they have been misled by a hateful campaign. We need unity in our movement. You see, it’s likely that a lot of people who signed the opposing list were just scared; at the beginning, the petition supporting RMS did not exist, and so it was not known how many people supported RMS. In other words, many people likely signed the anti-RMS list because they were scared of becoming outcasts. This is because last time, we were caught off guard. We stayed silent last time, but we will not be silent this time!

As of 31 March 2021, 02:50 AM UK time, we are winning! The letter calling for RMS’s removal has 2959 signatures. Our letter supporting and defending RMS has 4533 signatures! That’s a 60% approval rating, if you add up both numbers but our petition is rising in popularity much faster while the anti-RMS petition has stalled. People see that it’s OK to support RMS, because it is. RMS is innocent of wrongdoing!

Richard Stallman is my hero

I strongly believe in free software ideology. I am the founder of Libreboot, and its lead developer. When I first started using Free Software as a teenager in the mid 2000s, Richard Stallman’s lectures were among the biggest influences on me; Richard founded the GNU project in 1983 and the Free Software Foundation in 1985. I also saw the film Revolution OS and read Eric Raymond’s Cathedral and the Bazaar. I very quickly became fascinated but it was the articles by Richard on the GNU project website that heavily inspired me. For a few years however, I identified as an open source supporter until I gravitated towards the Free Software camp in 2009. I had worked sysadmin and IT support jobs at companies, working mostly with proprietary software including Windows, while at home I taught myself programming on GNU+Linux. I hated working with proprietary systems, precisely because of how restrictive they were compared to my systems at home, which all ran various GNU+Linux distributions (I also toyed with OpenBSD). When I did my A-Levels, I studied computing but they forced us to use the proprietary Visual Studio IDE and C#; I hated it, but coped with it by using Mono at home for class assignments. It wasn’t long after I joined as an FSF Associate Member in 2013 that my life took a huge turn, and Libreboot was a huge part of it. Needless to say, I strive to eliminate my dependence on proprietary software and I want others to experience such freedom aswell.

Richard Stallman’s articles and video lectures were what led me down this path. I have met the man 5 times, in 3 different countries.

In the early days of computing, most (if not all) software was shared freely with source code. In the early 1980s, when software started becoming more commercial, companies started making software proprietary which meant that the software no longer came with source code or otherwise placed restrictions on the use, development or sharing of that software. This meant that computer users no longer had freedom over their computing; by the time the GNU project started in 1983, free software did not exist! Richard Stallman, faced with the possibility of making large amounts of money as a proprietary software developer, staunchly resisted this trend and began the GNU project to create a completely free operating system that people could run on their computers.

I believe in Free Software for the same reason I believe in public education; I believe that knowledge is a human right. For example, I believe that all kids are entitled to learn Mathematics. I believe the same thing about Computer Science. Education is a human right. I want everyone to have freedom; the right to read, to a community and to free speech. Programming counts as speech, and I believe that all good work is based on the work of others; this is why the right to a community is critical. The four freedoms are paramount. I am a staunch supporter of copyleft and I believe that it should be mandatory, by law, for all creative and/or intellectual works. I use the GNU General Public License whenever possible, and I strongly advocate for its adoption everywhere.

Free software still has a long way to go. The mission of the GNU project and the Free Software movement is to eradicate proprietary software in our world and give everyone exclusively free software. That is a most noble mission which the Libreboot project shares. Companies like Apple and Microsoft resist us at every turn. Logic is highly proprietary; manufacturers of computer chips/boards heavily restrict access to knowledge about how the hardware works, and they put in DRM (such as cryptographic signature checks of firmware) to restrict our progress; this is why Libreboot still has very weak hardware support, as of the date this article is being published. Right to repair is a critical component of our fight, in particular, as a part of the wider OSHW (Free/libre Hardware) movement. Another problem we face is serialization of components, where the same component can no longer be used to replace another, in modern devices; the software on said device might check whether the new part is authorized and refuse to work if it isn’t. We in the freedom movement are under constant attacks, in a legal and technical sense. Large tech companies use every dirty trick in the book to thwart our efforts.

If it weren’t for Richard Stallman’s work, Libreboot would not exist. All works are derivative in human society; we stand on the shoulder of giants. The GNU project almost had a complete operating system, and finally they had one piece missing, the kernel; this program sits at the heart of the operating system, talking to hardware and allocating system resources, providing an interface on which application software can run. GNU had started work on a kernel which they called Hurd, but this is still far from complete as of 2021. Fortunately, another project called Linux appeared in the early 90s and was released under the GNU GPL, which meant that people were able to combine a modified GNU system with Linux to create a complete operating system; the first GNU+Linux distributions were born! It is from all of this that our movement, the Free Software movement, began, and without it, I doubt we’d have such wide access to free computing today. I cannot imagine a world where Libreboot and GNU do not both exist.

Could coreboot have existed without GNU+Linux? I doubt it very much! It’s possible that Linux on its own may have still existed, but would it have been Free Software by today? Would it have reached the level it did today? In that reality, BSD projects might have taken over instead, and would they have had the ideological drive to ensure that all computer users had freedom, or would they simply regard the source code as a reference for educational purposes only?

You see, Richard Stallman’s work in the 80s was revolutionary and without him, none of us would be here today. The people in charge of big tech companies like Apple and Microsoft hate us, and have been attacking our movement for years. That’s what the attacks on RMS have been about. They do not care what Richard did or didn’t do at any given point in time.

Richard had been president of the Free Software Foundation since its inception in 1985, spreading Free Software ideology all over the world; until, that is, he was cancelled in 2019 in the most Orwellian smear campaign possible.

Anyone familiar with Libreboot probably already knows all of the above, or they are familiar with the gist of it, so why am I talking about the FSF, GNU and Richard Stallman today? Because of something very sinister that is currently happening.

Don’t just take my word for it. Stephen Fry, a well-known GNU+Linux user, did this video in 2008 praising the GNU project and supporting Free Software:


in case it doesn’t load, try this link: https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=P_mS4CIXcLY

RMS is NOT transphobic

I’ve been good friends with Richard for many years. I did have a falling out with him (publicly so) a few years ago, but we made up. He has always respected me.

When my project, Libreboot, was in the process of joining GNU, I wasn’t out as trans. I came out as trans not long before Libreboot became GNU Libreboot. RMS switched to she/her with me on the spot. No problems.

Some people have linked to the following article and suggested that he is transphobic: https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html

Specifically, people believe that RMS refuses to use correct pronouns with people. People believe that RMS is transphobic for saying per/perse instead of accepting they/them.

Let me tell you something:

Richard sent me and several other people a copy of that article when he was drafting it. I repeatedly urged RMS not to do per/perse when he suggested it. I strongly suggested that he use they/them when referring to someone generically. When he decided to use per/perse, I was annoyed but not offended; you see, I regard it as idiotic. Clearly, they/them is commonly understood and will cause the least amount of misunderstanding.

Being foolish is not the same thing as being transphobic. If you actually tell Richard your preferred pronouns, he’ll use them with you without hesitation.

Several of my friends are trans and also speak to Richard, mostly via email. He respects their pronouns also.

Funnily enough, the GNU project has these guidelines about pronouns: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html – see: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html#f1

Not transphobic. At all. Same per/pers bullshit. Not transphobic, just stupid. I wasn’t misgendered by other GNU developers when my project, Libreboot, was in GNU. Calling RMS a transphobe is an insult to people who suffer from real transphobia.

Background information

I could address each specific accusation made against him, but other articles already do that; those articles are written much better than anything I could ever write, so please click on the links below.

I feel no need to re-invent the wheel. The whole purpose of this article was just to express my support for Richard Stallman, and to defend his honour. His time will end one day, and he deserves for that to come naturally. However, there is still much that he can contribute!

The following articles more or less describe accurately what happened since September 2019 when the events surrounding Richard Stallman started:


Here is another article expressing support for Richard, and it too has details about the events that took place:


This video by DistroTube provides an excellent account of events aswell:


Exposing our opponents for who they are

Our problem, in defending Richard Stallman, is that opponents of the Free Software movement have learned to co-opt our language. They talk the talk and they wear the colours, but make no mistake: their actions and their intentions do not reflect the ideology they claim to represent! There are genuinely some Free Software activists and organanisations on that list, who have been misled or have some other reason to oppose RMS; my focus will not be on those people, but hopefully some of those people and organisations will change their mind if they read what I have to say!

I do not subscribe to cancel culture. Some of these people may well try to cancel me but I would never do the same to them. This entire article merely aims to defend RMS against the vicious smear campaigns. To do that, we will explore some of the people on that anti-RMS list.

I said I wouldn’t directly link to the list calling for RMS’s removal, so I will print the URL below without making it a hyperlink (this prevents it from being boosted in search engines). Look at the names on their list:


Don’t be fooled! The open source movement is not the same as the Free Software movement! The following article describes how Open Source differs from Free Software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

I will focus on the people in the main list of signers, and maybe talk about specific organisations (or other names) on that list. Some of them are otherwise reasonable people besides their anti-RMS stance (which means they were misled, most likely), whereas some people on the list are nasty.

I will jump straight into it:

Redhat pulling funding from FSF

RedHat announced, in response to RMS’s re-instatement at the FSF, that they would remove their funding for the FSF. They joined in on the usual smear campaign.

RedHat is owned by known non-free software company IBM these days. Their enterprise GNU+Linux distro comes with plenty of non-free software and they actively tell their customers how to get more; they do nothing to advance free software and merely see it as something they can use. They do not believe in FSF ideology. More info about the merger: https://www.redhat.com/en/ibm

Redhat very recently killed CentOS. CentOS was a community edition of RHEL, with a strong community backing. In other words, Redhat actively took a step that hurts the community. More info: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/12/centos-shifts-from-red-hat-unbranded-to-red-hat-beta/

Look at that: https://www.ibm.com/products/software

Does this look like a company that cares about Free Software?

Why should we care what RedHat thinks? If they pull funding, that’s one less corrupting influence to worry about! Redhat does not believe in free software (they may have believed in open source at one point, but that time is probably long gone now that they’ve been bought by IBM)

OSI/Microsoft connection

OSI is short for Open Source Initiative. This organisation started as an offshoot of the Free Software Foundation in an attempt to make Free Software more marketable to large corporations. Read about the OSI here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative

They say a picture speaks a thousand words:

From left to right, their names (all prominent OSI leaders/influencers), where left is your left and their right (for the phono in the photos) are:

Back row: Faidon Liambotis, Chris Lamb, Simon Phipps, Allison Randal, Molly de Blanc, Patrick Masson

Front row: Josh Simmons, VM Brasseur, Carol Smith, Italo Vignoli, Richard Fontana.

All of these people are highly influential at the OSI. Several former presidents.

Does this look strange to you? Look where they are. The photo comes from this news article: http://techrights.org/2020/01/15/osi-board-at-microsoft/ (archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20200121042512/http://techrights.org/2020/01/15/osi-board-at-microsoft/)

Microsoft is a major sponsor of the OSI. OSI themselves have an article on their website, stating this: https://opensource.org/node/901 (archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20201112022740/https://opensource.org/node/901)

When your organisation starts to depend on large amounts of funding by companies like Microsoft (who have rigorously attacked Free Software and Open Source for years), you are going to lose sight of some of your ideals. You will lose some of that spark you previously had in you. You will start doing what your donors tell you, because you fear the loss of that funding. Microsoft, over the years, has dived into their version of what they regard as open source; in reality, it’s just openwashing (like whitewashing, but with Open Source perspective instead), and Microsoft’s core products such as Windows are still very much non-free! Microsoft still campaigns hard for your lack of freedom by getting more and more computers locked down with things like SecureBoot and cryptographically signed firmware.

So if Microsoft has hated Richard Stallman for years, and wanted to destroy him for years, and Microsoft has financial influence at the Open Source Initiative, on organization that could somewhat credibly speak Free Software lingo, would that not be the best thing ever for Microsoft? Imagine being Microsoft. You’d jump at the opportunity, right? Someone tell me I’m not the only one here.

Even if Microsoft wasn’t heavily attached to the OSI, would the OSI have any right using the language of Free Software while claiming to be a part of our community? Open source is not a part of the Free Software movement! It is an ideological competitor to Free Software.

Fun fact:

The OSI recently banned Eric S Raymond (co-founder of the OSI) from their mailing lists, after certain comments he made defending the OSI against infiltration by the Ethical Source movement and against oppressive codes of conducts that stifle free speech. Despite the name, Ethical Source licenses are in fact non-free because they put restrictions on usage of the software; if the author of such software disagrees with your political views, they can ban you from using the software. This is wrong! People like Coraline Ada Ehmke (leader of Ethical Source movement) were trying to influence the OSI so as to re-write the Open Source Definition. This video provides some nice introductory information:


In the OSI’s case, they probably won’t let Eric back in; though even if I disagree with Open Source (I’m a Free Software activist), Open Source isn’t at a bad thing per se, just ideologically lacking; Ethical Source people like Coraline Ada Ehmke will cause extreme amounts of damage if they get their way (they’ve already infiltrated several well-known Free Software and Open Source aligned projects by getting them to introduce a Code of Conduct; Libreboot recently came to the good sense to scrap its Code of Conduct, which was none other than Coraline’s Contributor Covenant)

Everyone should send Eric Raymond a supportive email. He did the right thing. Tell him you care. I’ve never heard anything especially horrible about him. He’s very reasonable and a nice person; outspoken and unfiltered while still being respectful (in my opinion, having read some of his articles), which is quite refreshing.

Microsoft employees

Yes, Microsoft employees are on the anti-RMS list.

What business do these people have lecturing us about Free Software ideals or about FSF affairs?

Microsoft is a mortal enemy of the Free Software movement. Microsoft isn’t foolish enough to sign their entire company name onto the list, because then that would be game over for the anti-RMS campaign; so instead, they use their corrupting influences at various organisations that supposedly represent us.

If I were Microsoft, I’d ask these people to remove their names from the list. It actually hurts their anti-RMS efforts, for such people to have their position at Microsoft stated like this, even if it’s just a few people.

None of their people on this list seem to be high up at Microsoft. I would be inclined to believe that they published their names independently, without direction. No sane Microsoft boss would want Microsoft listed on that page, in any capacity!

Gnome Foundation (has been deeply connected to Microsoft)

NOTE: Do not confused the Gnome community with the Gnome Foundation. They are very different things!

There are well-known connections between members of the Gnome Foundation with Microsoft. Here is an article:


They have been attacking RMS for years:


So, of course, it’s not credible for these people to represent themselves on behalf of the Free Software movement!

The following Gnome Foundation members are on the core signers list of the anti-RMS petition, and associated with the Gnome Foundation:

  • Molly de Blanc (Debian Project, GNOME Foundation) (also associated with OSI)
  • Neil McGovern (GNOME Foundation Executive Director, Former Debian Project Leader)
  • Luis Villa (Former Director of the Open Source Initiative and the GNOME Foundation; contributor to the GPL v3 drafting process)

In other cases, I wouldn’t choose to list names, but Neil and Molly are two of the people with push/pull/review rights on the anti-RMS github site. I feel the need to mention their names; see also that they are both members of the Debian project.

Coraline Ada Ehmke (Founder, Organization for Ethical Source)

Coraline is the founder of the Ethical source movement. Despite the name, it is actually distributing non-free licenses; non-free because they put restrictions on the usage of software licensed under it. If you use software under one of those licenses, and the author disagrees with you politically, the author can ban you from using that software.

I for one believe in freedom! I want freedom for everyone, including those whom I politically disagree with!

Discriminating based on someones beliefs is always wrong. No ifs, no buts. I want my political opponents to have freedom, because:

  • If I were able to take away my enemy’s freedom, they could take away mine.
  • If my enemy were able to take away my freedom, I could take away theirs.

Coraline is also quite abusive online. There are numerous accounts of her terrorizing companies/projects, acting like a bully. There’s a chance that she might even target the Libreboot project, if someone tells her of this article.

She is a horrible person.

She’s more well known for the Contributor Covenant, a template code of conduct that some projects use. We in Libreboot recommend that you do not have a code of conduct, because it alienates new contributors and creates a self-censored environment where people feel unable to express their views about issues; you see, freedom of speech is healthy, and it’s quite common sense to just deal with bad behaviours. Contributor Covenant is a trojan horse; that’s what they push on you first, and then they’ll recommend you use an Ethical Source license. Once you take your first dose of Ethical Source, they’ll sink their claws into your project. Do not let these types of people infiltrate your project!

Do not listen to Coraline Ada Ehmke or anyone like her! She is fuelled by hatred and bigotry herself. She is completely intolerant of other people’s views and regularly tries to destroy people she disagrees with.


That’s all!

Defend RMS!

Can’t be bothered to write more. I was going to go through the list more exhaustively, but I think you see the point.

Licence: GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.3

The Open Source Creative Commons: Code of CONduct

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, OSI at 3:20 am by Guest Editorial Team

Creative Commons research and guest author post by Marcia K. Wilbur

code CONduct

Summary: Marcia Wilbur takes a closer look at what happened to Creative Commons in recent times; it’s not what people have come to assume Creative Commons stands for

After some research, I discovered changes at CC, from “open the door” to open source. The people there embrace this and Ehmke. Here are some details.

Imagine my surprise to see the Creative Commons updated website, which honestly seemed somewhat abandoned recently – except for a few students working on a search engine in late 2019.

“Imagine my surprise to see the Creative Commons updated website, which honestly seemed somewhat abandoned recently – except for a few students working on a search engine in late 2019.”Prominently featured on the landing page was an podcast with Coraline Ehmke. After some research, the following was discovered:

- Creative Commons has adopted a Code of Conduct based on Contributor Covenant.

- November 2, 2020: The CC Open Source website was announced. Google and Outreachy as contributors – as usual! To add insult to injury, the CC Open Source website claims: “WE HAVE BEEN BUILDING FREE SOFTWARE AT CREATIVE COMMONS FOR OVER A DECADE.”

Yes. But Open Source software is very different from free software with regards to ethics and philosophy!


“Say Hello to Our New CC Open Source Website!
This is part of a series of posts introducing the projects built by open source contributors mentored by Creative Commons during Google Summer of Code (GSoC) 2020 and Outreachy. This post was written by Dhruvi Butti, a 2020 Outreachy intern and a 3rd-year undergrad at IIIT Surat.”

Can we delete the shameless plugs and get to the important stuff? This unwelcoming site includes not only has Codes of Conduct (codes), but an option in the navigation to: Code of Conduct Enforcement

Community huh

CC enforcement

Now, there is a Code of Conduct committee and lots of documentation about policy. Why is there so much work around Code of Conduct? I’m dev. I code. So much policy and at Creative Commons. Why? There was never a need for this before.

While we have a right to say and do what we want, we also consider civility and community. Will you replace community with policy?

November 4, 2020: Two days later a post came in about the open source project and contributing on GitHub (a Microsoft platform).

A post about heading in a new direction appears, as Diane Peters departs.

February 19, 2021: Podcast “open minds” announced.

March 16, 2021: Meet Your New Global Network Council Executive Committee!

March 19, 2021: Podcast – with Coraline Ehmke

In my wildest imagination, I could never have predicted an Open Source movement from within the Creative Commons. However, when you leave the front door ajar, some see this as an invitation to enter.

In 2001, RMS and Lessig rallied together in San Francisco.
In 2002, the Creative Commons received funding to move forward.
By 2014, a new effort and project, the Free Culture Trust, was a collaboration including Creative Commons.

This project was a diverse group of free software (so I believed at the time), open source and proprietary contributors. There were differences in how each group viewed the workflow. There were differences with regard to philosophy, software use, certain mission direction areas. There were as many differences as possible. There were different genders, religions. Did that matter? No. In the end, we contributed and collaborated in a civil and friendly manner. We had no Code of Conduct. We didn’t need one.

There were recommendations by each party as to how to best contribute. A collaboration tool respecting all views did not exist, and we went from requests to using Etherpad to using Google Docs. We never considered a Code of Conduct. We did not need one.

E-mails, voice meetings, and Etherpad were used. During meetings, we discussed the goals and mission of the trust, for a document. During the months long process, suddenly, the Commons dropped off support.

We were informed (2014) the Creative Commons closed their physical doors for lack of funding. Well, we live in a digital age, so closing physical doors is somewhat acceptable – especially if you do not have funding.

The years to follow seemed to be somewhat stable. People didn’t realize or didn’t care about the physical location.

Then, there were some issues with the commons licenses and forks.

One example is recently, in a documentation list for OpenOffice, former AOO documentation people discussed with OpenOffice the use of CC by 3 and CC by 4 and needed to get legal involved. Somehow during the fork of LibreOffice, the content license was changed from CC by 3 to CC by 4 with a mix of GPL (GPL, it’s not just for code snippets!).

The bottom line here is, maybe we need more guidance and less copy and paste of licenses like Code of Conduct or Creative Commons.

Listed below are some free options:

GFDL or Public Domain

Code snippets in Content
GPLv2 or GPLv3

GPLv2 or GPLv3

Code of CONduct

Unnecessary. Using the current popular “template” for Code of Conduct is not in the best interest for my community efforts or my work in AIoT.

Try and see this from the developer’s standpoint. Of course, let’s be civil in our projects.

Try the FFmpeg Code of Conduct if you absolutely need to use one.

From the FFmpeg CoC: Finally, keep in mind the immortal words of Bill and Ted, “Be excellent to each other.”

The problem with our organization models in our community could be partially attributed to being subject to donations to survive or thrive. Our organizations have succumbed to popular culture, fashionable ethics and being subjects rather than directors.

As organizations de-prioritize the importance of individuals in our community (see OSI article at Techrights) for corporations and funding, how can our community thrive?

Copyleft News: Will you Demand Freedom?

As a recap of the last couple years, we had:

OSI placing Microsoft as a prominent force in their efforts. In 2020, Ehmke lost by approx. 65% of the vote.

SFC held a Microsoft Sponsored Copyleft conference during FOSDEM. Ehmke spoke about the Rising Ethical Storm in Open Source.

Some other presentations listed below:

Karen Sandler spoke about Software Ethics and Copyleft Licensing.

Josh Simmons spoke about Copyleft in a business context.

John Sullivan discussed Copyleft Expansion with SFC.

It’s their party. They can say whatever they want. At the end of the day, we as a community choose whether to accept their proposals or not.

Will you choose enforcement and policing…?


Demand Freedom?

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources




Samba logo

We support

End software patents


GNU project


EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com

Recent Posts