EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

10.13.19

Firm of Microsoft’s Former Litigation Chief Uses Microsoft-Connected Patent Lawsuit Against GNU/Linux (GNOME Foundation) for New Breed of FUD Campaigns

Posted in Bill Gates, Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNOME, Microsoft, Patents at 11:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

There’s also an apparent connection to Epstein’s notorious pedophile/child trafficking ring — perhaps a subject to explore another day

Birds of a feather...
Birds of a feather… Nathan Myhrvold with Epstein

Summary: The patent troll of Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold has fed a patent troll that’s attacking GNU/Linux and a firm owned by Microsoft’s former litigation chief says it proves “Open Source Software Remains a Target”

WHAT do the men at the top have in common? Both are close friends of Bill Gates, the famous criminal with his scam/sham ‘charity’. We keep gathering new and interesting facts about Gates. “Both of his “Science” advisors were Epsteinites,” told us an anonymous source close to Microsoft, “one of which is shacked up with Steve Sinofsky, the other was the backup executor of his will. Even Nathan Myhrvold got caught hanging out with him. Such a small world…”

“Firm of Microsoft people celebrating (or leveraging for FUD) a lawsuit against GNU/Linux by a patent troll armed by a Microsoft proxy? If Groklaw was still around, PJ would have something to say about it.”We were also sent the above photo. So even Intellectual Ventures (IV) — the world’s largest patent troll created by a close friend of Bill Gates — is possibly connected to this pedophile ring.

Last month GNU/Linux was sued by a troll that this bigger troll had armed and supported. This hasn’t been mentioned in a while, but here’s all the media/blog coverage. Notice how nobody except us [1, 2] took note of the connection. Are they blind? Are they unwilling to research a little? It’s not hard. It’s right there in the public domain.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, a firm headed/created by Microsoft’s former litigation bigwig (we wrote about this before, e.g. in [1, 2, 3]), has just weighed in by saying “Open Source Software Remains a Target as GNOME Foundation Hit with Patent Infringement Lawsuit” (the words between the lines are, “FOSS is dangerous!”).

“The GNOME Foundation is the non-profit organization that coordinates the development and operation of the popular open source desktop environment with which it shares a name,” they said. “The GNOME desktop environment supports many free and open source software applications.”

The USPTO granted a likely bogus patent and the likes of OIN plan to leverage against it prior art instead of 35 U.S.C. § 101 (typical IBM).

In a move that evidences an emerging pattern, Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC, a non-practicing entity (“NPE”), has filed a complaint asserting patent infringement against the open source software organization, the GNOME Foundation. The GNOME Foundation is the non-profit organization that coordinates the development and operation of the popular open source desktop environment with which it shares a name. The GNOME desktop environment supports many free and open source software applications. Rothschild alleges in the only count of the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, that the GNOME image management software “Shotwell” infringes their U.S. Patent 9,936,086, directed to “a wireless image distribution system and method.” Rothschild Patent Imaging did not just single out GNOME Foundation, but cast a nationwide net in asserting the ‘086 patent – since July 2019 it has filed five other cases against various defendants (Magix Computer, Cyberlink, Zoner, QNAP, and Monument Labs) in Nevada, Delaware, Illinois and California.

Firm of Microsoft people celebrating (or leveraging for FUD) a lawsuit against GNU/Linux by a patent troll armed by a Microsoft proxy? If Groklaw was still around, PJ would have something to say about it. But all we have left is so-called ‘media’ or ‘press’ better skilled at diverting all attention from a Gates scandal to a phony Stallman ‘scandal’.

“Widespread Adoption” (Did You Mean: Takeover by Monopolies?)

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF at 11:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

By figosdev

Summary: “Quite a few of them are people that would rather replace David with Goliath, just because he’s bigger. Quite a few are already taking money from Goliath.”

Robert Johnson’s “Cross Road Blues” tells the story of a man at the crossroads between this world and the next, “down on his knees” as he watches everybody else pass him. What’s holding “poor Bob” back? We assume it’s a deal he made with the devil.

Atheist Richard Stallman has a number of things to say about the devil — one is that Microsoft is not “the Great Satan” (though some of us aren’t as confident) and more recently, the FSF invited people attending Free software install-fests to consider a “deal with the devil” by including non-free software in their installs.

“…the FSF invited people attending Free software install-fests to consider a “deal with the devil” by including non-free software in their installs.”It’s not at all unusual for atheists to play with religious imagery; as a collection of metaphors and morals, religion has a significant footprint in our cultural and societal backgrounds.

I’m agnostic myself, with sympathy for both theism and theists, and though I’m strongly against the idea of theocracy and pushing religion on people I consider religion just another aspect of culture. It should be optional, whether you choose to reject it or choose to have it in your life. It’s probably no coincidence that this is the position of the First Amendment as well (I’ve always been a fan of it.)

“The church did the same to Galileo for the blasphemy of saying the earth was round, and society did the same to Socrates. Now we do it to Stallman.”As for meaningful concepts of evil, I think they’re often oversimplified. Once you stop paying heed to the fanatics who think of sin in terms of black and white, you are left with some interesting (possibly even amusing) stories of Adam getting “set up” by his own all-knowing creator. Adam’s weaknesses and strengths were known — under the right circumstances, he was arguably more than likely to eat the forbidden fruit.

Adam’s first sin, humanity’s first known imperfection — tells a story far more interesting than the simple prohibition of a particular food. And treating that imperfection superficially is perhaps the first big misunderstanding that leads religious zealots to persecute others for their own imperfections.

“Society too has a compulsion that involves building up heroes and then tearing them down, when it externalises virtues and then projects failures onto a deity or celebrity.”This link between superficiality and unjust persecution is extremely relevant when you are witnessing the rise of the Malleus Hackerum or “Hacker’s Hammer” that is the Code of Conduct; seemingly designed to create a relatively nerdless society by condemning and then banning the autist from his own creation in the name of “inclusion.” The church did the same to Galileo for the blasphemy of saying the earth was round, and society did the same to Socrates. Now we do it to Stallman.

Present-day scientists, engineers and doctors know that if you don’t understand the problem, you’re likely to get the solution wrong too. A way to work past this superficiality is to find a bigger picture as a framework and then pay special attention to the context of facts; because context is everything.

“This is a witch hunt, and the reason it’s a witch hunt is that nothing less — and nothing more just or more honest would be enough to take him down.”We can argue that both Adam and Stallman were “set up” — Adam with foreknowledge of his nature and Stallman with false witness, Adam (humanity) was condemned to death as a result, while others are pursuing the social and political death of Stallman. If you examine the origins of this story, whether you focus on the Judaic aspects or delve into connections with Egyptian mythology, the greater contexts of this “death” are about distance from the creator rather than simple mortality — there is a theme of death and rebirth, of distance and return.

Society too has a compulsion that involves building up heroes and then tearing them down, when it externalises virtues and then projects failures onto a deity or celebrity. Stallman is a great man, he is being defended by feminists and followers while the media places things he didn’t say into contexts that other things he actually said were not said in. This is a witch hunt, and the reason it’s a witch hunt is that nothing less — and nothing more just or more honest would be enough to take him down.

“This is an angry, frothing medieval mob that keeps tacking on additional sentences even as guilt of the crime is being brought more into question.”But we know that he is guilty of blasphemy, and the sentence is public stoning. How far we’ve come in the 21st century.

“We’ve found a witch, may we burn him!”

“How do you know he’s a witch?”

“He talks like one!”

“These aren’t my words, these are deliberate misquotes. And they imply things that are the exact opposite of what I actually said. Large media outlets are saying I defended Epstein, when actually I called him ‘serial rapist.’ How exactly is that defending him?”

The public’s reaction to finding out that the funny hat isn’t his and the pointy nose is a false one?

“And the tech press is dancing and popping champagne corks. Why shouldn’t they? They never worked for Free software in the first place, they work for Big Tech.”“Buuuuurnnnnn him anyway!”

It’s not enough to step down as president — no, he’s got to resign from the board (Bad move, FSF. Like someone said “Reload! Now aim for the other foot.”) No, that’s not enough, he still controls GNU!

This looks nothing like justice, nor due process, nor fair anything. This is an angry, frothing medieval mob that keeps tacking on additional sentences even as guilt of the crime is being brought more into question. And the tech press is dancing and popping champagne corks. Why shouldn’t they? They never worked for Free software in the first place, they work for Big Tech.

Some people will dismiss what I’m saying by calling it a religious sermon, but for them any excuse to dismiss it will do. As a boy, I didn’t predict USB drives with Tarot cards or a divining rod. I was a strong atheist myself at the time — I declared religion to be the antithesis of science at age 4. (I didn’t use the word “antithesis” of course. I didn’t even know the word “atheist” at the time.)

“None of this was a result of Stallman simply being misquoted — it was a result of long-standing effort to remove him.”I predicted USB drives because as a boy, floppies seemed really impractical as a medium and I was interested in EEPROMS. It seemed far more likely to me that when it became practical, we would use chips instead of magnetic devices. Well, what can I say? (I do prefer spindrives to SSD, but for portability — or the modern equivalent of floppies, you can’t beat solid-state.)

Similarly, there was already writing on the wall before Red Hat was purchased (a few months after I mentioned it) and Techrights was already talking about the problems Stallman faced before this all happened. None of this was a result of Stallman simply being misquoted — it was a result of long-standing effort to remove him. If you think all humanity suffers death for “just an apple” or that Stallman is being put through this because he deserves it, I think there’s very obviously a story that makes a lot more sense. One that’s not going to be impossible for people to fit together.

I’ve talked about Stallman being in a public stoning, because they haven’t stopped throwing them yet — and being burned as a witch, because it was necessary to dress him up that way first — and I think it’s very fair to say that what some people really want for him is a crucifixion.

“I don’t ever want to support a company that poses an existential threat to libraries, by reserving full control of titles by the publishers and booksellers.”After all, we stone heretics and blasphemers and we burn witches, but we crucify beloved teachers and prophets. When Stallman wrote “The Right to Read” he didn’t predict DRM in ebooks any differently than I predicted USB drives or the purchase of Red Hat.

Like any science fiction author, he looked at the present day, made notes of the problems that already existed and considered the reasons they exist — and made predictions based on likely next steps. For an atheist, this is no more divination than an expert game of chess is.

And though we would prefer that he had not been right, DRM in ebooks exists today. I started boycotting Amazon the day I heard they were doing this to books, because at the time I considered adding DRM to books nearly the most evil thing they could do with the technology. I don’t ever want to support a company that poses an existential threat to libraries, by reserving full control of titles by the publishers and booksellers.

“If the New Testament tells us anything, it’s that literally no amount of virtue can make you immune from being crucified by an angry mob sponsored by a threatened empire.”As for my interest in mythology and religion, Kirby Ferguson’s “Everything is a Remix” talks about how Star Wars was inspired by Joseph Campbell’s “The Hero with a Thousand Faces”. I already knew about that connection, but “Everything is a Remix” is really worth a watch; you can find it on invidio.us.

If the New Testament tells us anything, it’s that literally no amount of virtue can make you immune from being crucified by an angry mob sponsored by a threatened empire. I’m certainly not implying that Stallman is Jesus; I would sooner point out the commonalities between Big Tech and Rome.

It’s not a metaphor I spend a lot of time on, but consider the reaction of the Church to the printing press — or possibly the matter of lead pipes (a great technological achievement, you can’t deny it) versus today’s backdoors in our network technology.

Will Big Tech fall as Rome did, due in part to the failure inherent in digital plumbing? I don’t know, and I don’t even know enough about Roman history to be sure it’s a good metaphor. I do know that the Tech CEOs are as arrogant as Nero. Somewhere there’s a scholar who is rolling his eyes right now, and I’m sorry. But the point of history is to learn lessons from it, if we can.

In various cultural traditions, there are great crucifixions — not only of Jesus but Rabbi Akiva’s death by torture and the crucifixion of Osirus and Horus.

The cross itself, prior to its use in Christianity (for example, the Celtic cross) can be a symbol of the sun, and by extension the seasons, and by abstraction the heavens (where the sun is) or time itself.

“You can’t simply take the life of a hero — if you want to truly destroy him, you have to first steal his virtue.”When you crucify a beloved hero, you create a martyr; you symbolically bestow timelessness and immortality. You can’t simply take the life of a hero — if you want to truly destroy him, you have to first steal his virtue. Replace his halo with a crown of thorns, spit on him and mock him as a “king.” Bear false witness, and attack his legacy and teachings. Only when you succeed in that is he destroyed.

This is not a sermon dressed up as a history lesson, it is a history lesson dressed up as a sermon.

There are a few instances, at least — of religious stories with a hero dying in a crucifixion and gaining immortality. There are cliches of artists “suffering for their art” or even literally dying from their own soul’s torment as they try to become immortal as well.

And let’s not ignore Assange or Aaron, as other recent examples that paint a picture of this happening a bit too often.

Along with this recurring story of crucifixion and immortality, history contains far more examples of building up a hero so that they can be destroyed. Sometimes that hero is false, though he doesn’t have to be. Often the reason is jealousy, spite, or simply unreasonable hopes (or impossible standards) that were dashed when they went unmet.

“Unfortunately, we live in an increasingly superficial and narcissistic society — it demands heroes in its great desperation, and destroys everyone who falls short of impossible standards.”The narcissist is also constantly building heroes and producing metaphorical idols — of idealised people who let him down and must be destroyed and punished for their sins. In the too-rare instance where someone discovers this habit and turns away from it, they can try to become fair and rational in their expectations of other people.

Unfortunately, we live in an increasingly superficial and narcissistic society — it demands heroes in its great desperation, and destroys everyone who falls short of impossible standards. I’ve heard people say that this attitude signals a coming dark age. But aren’t we in a dark age already? Aren’t we surrounded by the gradual slaughter of everyone good and the triumph of evil?

History tells us things will get worse before they really improve, but the path of the hero is to live and sometimes suffer, for better things and higher purposes regardless of the state of the world. Or as George Bernard Shaw tells us, “all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

After Stallman “dies” the manufactured death of his virtue, many will rush in to take his place and demand your loyalty and expect your praise.

There will be arguments and debates about what it truly means to be “free.” But false Stallmans and real-life Judases aside, freedom is fundamentally very simple. You don’t stand for freedom by worshiping idols but by seeking the truth. The truth will not be handed down from Goliath-like corporations, but expressed by David-like individuals who serve as an example to others. Freedom is a struggle, it is not the medals they give you for it.

“But Stallman was not our God, he was (and is) a messenger of freedom. That message is a threat to power, and history makes it very clear how that often works out in the end.”You can choose to stand with the Roman Empire, if you believe it has more virtue than those they prefer to see crucified. But Stallman was not our God, he was (and is) a messenger of freedom. That message is a threat to power, and history makes it very clear how that often works out in the end.

Watch the people who try to make an example of him — and watch carefully what they propose now that he has fallen. Those of us who think freedom is the most important thing, will not crucify the people who stand against us — but we will never follow them either. We will fight their lies with truth, their rabid, drooling spite with reason, and their efforts to destroy Stallman with a renewal of his effort to make all software free. Even Michael Jackson has a project to defend his legacy — you can guarantee that Stallman will. Billionaires have their philanthropy, most likely for the same reason.

Free software is for everybody that wants freedom, regardless of their beliefs.

“Quite a few of them are people that would rather replace David with Goliath, just because he’s bigger. Quite a few are already taking money from Goliath.”There are people who don’t agree with that, who don’t include Stallman and want to exclude him. They don’t speak for us, and they never will. If you try to find the context of what they really want, you barely have to scratch the surface. Quite a few of them are people that would rather replace David with Goliath, just because he’s bigger. Quite a few are already taking money from Goliath.

Of course, it’s very much up to you what you do with your freedom — the purpose of a watchdog isn’t to boss you around, it’s to alert you to problems. We can work on the solutions together, when it suits us to voluntarily do so. We propose and advocate our ideas — you propose and advocate yours. We all decide what to do with what we know. That’s a big part of what freedom is.

When we agree on something, we struggle together. When we can’t agree, we struggle apart. It’s very useful to find our commonalities, and understand our differences. For many of us, Stallman and freedom are two things we are not willing to compromise on.

Compromise can be a wonderful thing, when nothing vital is sacrificed and the net benefit to each side is positive. When the level of compromise exceeds what is net beneficial, the word becomes synonymous with failure, security issues and misplaced trust. The more trust people demand, especially when it is one-sided, the more likely it is that trust is misplaced.

I believe we have put too much trust in the wrong people, and particularly the wrong ideas, and those mistakes have left Free software compromised. And I don’t believe that either fundamentalism or becoming too lax will help, nor do I disagree with Stallman on the matter of making money with Free software.

“I believe we have put too much trust in the wrong people, and particularly the wrong ideas, and those mistakes have left Free software compromised.”But I do think the secular cults of Mammon (who worship wealth and power over goodness itself) are the real reason our respected teacher now lives in exile. He’s only a man after all, but he’s certainly greater than many who enjoy the idea that they’ve finally beaten him.

He’s already fallen, but this has gone on for 20 years — they won’t stop until he’s dead, and they will continue even after that.

Perhaps that’s justice for a dictator or mass murderer, but we do it for folk heroes too. Say what you will about the scale of Stallman’s legacy — but if you think he’s anything less than a folk hero, you are truly fooling yourself.

Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (public domain)

Free Software Timeline and Federation: When Free Software Advocacy/Support is a Monopoly Expansion Becomes Necessary

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF at 7:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“With nonfree software, support is a monopoly, because only the developer has the source code and only the developer can make any change.”Richard Stallman in TN, India

“Proprietary software usually means a monopoly for support because only the developer has the source code…”Richard Stallman in Zagreb, Croatia

Timeline

Summary: Support for Software Freedom — like support for Free software (think Red Hat/IBM and systemd) — should be decentralised and compartmentalised to make the movement stronger and adaptable

THE most recent events served to show that in order to make Free software more resilient and its support network a lot more robust (resistant to malicious/misguided dissenters, entryism etc.) we may need to federate advocacy of it.

“We thank people who have joined us in recent months as readers, IRC lurkers, contributors and so on.”A contributor of ours is working on this timeline of Free (as in freedom, libre) software and it hopefully helps explain the history and how/why it all came about. Free software is a response or a reaction to particular events of significance. Yes, it was largely reactionary because prior to it (e.g. in the 1970s) sharing and passing around code had been the ‘norm’.

We thank people who have joined us in recent months as readers, IRC lurkers, contributors and so on. We’re currently working to better advance Software Freedom, not only by means of reporting and advocacy; those wishing to participate and are eager to help can contact us on bytesmedia@bytesmedia.co.uk (multiple recipients).

Meme: Richard Stallman Irrelevant

Posted in Bill Gates, Free/Libre Software, Humour at 4:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Corporate media, Richard Stallman - See? Richard Stallman just isn't relevant anymore

Summary: Saint IGNUcius — Richard Stallman — just isn’t the Saint Bill Gates is

10.12.19

Openwashing Reports Are on Hold

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software at 1:32 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Weekly openwashing report

Summary: The need to stress Software Freedom and shun all that “open” nonsense has quickly become apparent; some of the people who oppose Stallman turn out to be “Open Source” proponents who don’t even value freedom of expression (free speech)

FOR TWO weekends in a row we did not post even a single “Openwashing Report”; this weekend too there probably won’t be one. Readers deserve an explanation because a few months back we said we’d like to make this a weekly feature. Then we lost momentum, not because openwashing examples became too scarce but because they’ve become too many and increasingly the ‘norm’; the moment there was something called Open Core Summit you just knew that Open Source had jumped the shark.

“We must now return to speaking in terms like Software Freedom. The term “open” is far too vague and often meaningless; it’s open to spin and misrepresentation or misinterpretation.”At one point we had someone volunteering to help us with research for “Openwashing Report”; one associate bemoaned the state of news regarding “open source”, alleging that almost everything became openwashing. I too felt that way, which is why I started this series in the first place.

We must now return to speaking in terms like Software Freedom. The term “open” is far too vague and often meaningless; it’s open to spin and misrepresentation or misinterpretation.

“More Open Than Open [...] I am constantly amazed at the flexibility of this single word.”

Microsoft’s Jason Matusow (further background in [1, 2, 3])

Support the GNU Project and Support Free Speech

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF at 1:03 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

GNU IS NOT UNIX. GNU is not FSF either. GNU is RMS.

Summary: Techrights is loyal to Software Freedom and those eager to promote it; it cannot, however, support those who don’t support free speech

More articles of interest from Daniel Pocock (nowadays being censored covertly ‘canceled’ by so-called ‘communities’ of FOSS, including the FSF):

10.11.19

MIT Scandal in a Nutshell

Posted in Bill Gates, Free/Libre Software, FSF at 6:02 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Bill Gates bribed MIT through his mate Epstein, whose crimes he knew

Summary: What happened a month ago, explained using a meme

A: Bill Gates bribed MIT through his mate Epstein, whose crimes he knew

B: But Stallman argued about semantics… over an accused deceased professor

A: Gates had child porn found in his house and his chief IT guy was awarded money in Epstein’s will after Gates had met with him and flew the “Lolita Express”

B: But I don’t like Stallman’s message!

A: You got the media all diverted!

Guest Post: An Open Letter to Matt Lee Regarding freesw.org

Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux at 12:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

By figosdev

Matt Lee
Via Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons CC BY 4.0

Summary: “I realise you and I probably don’t agree on very much. What I think we do agree on is the importance of getting Free Culture and Free Software right.”

Here is a great idea: https://freesw.org/

The webpage states: “Starting today we are going to start an effort to unite our community around our shared values and to document, promote and publicize any and all software, artwork, documentation, and supporting material that meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines.”

There are hints that this won’t just be about software:

“Thanks to the work of hundreds of thousands of individuals and dozens of organizations, we now have free and open music, movies, books, and encyclopedias, as well as software.”

The Free Media Alliance promotes this sort of idea and encourages people (including Lee) to pursue building such collections.

I would personally recommend that such a collection be licensed CC0, to maximise its usefulness to a global network of such libraries. Library-like Listings of works do not add value by restricting what other people can do with them; on the contrary, the more we build these libraries online the more we can contribute substantially to each others’ libraries — simply by managing our own.

I don’t have any details on the plans regarding freesw.org, nor do I assume that anybody will make use of any of this advice, but if they don’t then I would offer the same advice to anybody else creating a library online.

The choice to provide “supporting material that meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines” is a particularly good one. In the past, the DFSG was used to discourage people from choosing a “documentation license” over one suitable to OER; I support the GNU GPL but the “Free Documentation License” restricts paper copies.

For OER, restrictions on paper copies are not ideal, and the FDL was unsuitable enough that Wikipedia worked to migrate from that license to a proper Free Culture license for its encyclopedia project. Fortunately for us, the FSF helped them.

If textbooks are better off with Free Culture licenses, then we are better off scrapping special licenses for “documentation” and just use the better (also more free) OER standards. If those OER standards do not offer the 4 freedoms, then we should create a “Libre Education Resource” standard that does. GPL compatibility is a serious bonus.

As for this library, the easier we make it to find works (both software works and cultural works) under free licenses, the better these licenses and their associated freedoms will be known — the better promoted and considered by all as a means of communication and spreading intellectual freedom.

It was my hope, years ago, that Students for Free Culture would both change their name to the Free Culture Foundation and create a library such as the one Lee describes. Today, the Free Culture Foundation website seems to be missing, the freeculture.org wiki seems to be vandalised and even the Creative Commons wiki has deleted valuable data on freely-licensed books that they used to host.

What is it about Free Culture that makes people walk away?

As each iteration of a major Free Culture resource has risen and wavered, my hope is that we will finally build a collaborative network of libraries that together serve the many different needs, desires (and perhaps demands) of different people. Each year, more Free Culture and Free Software works are created. Free Software has a directory; Free Culture still lacks one (though I continue to find new things to add to the Alliance Library, and people are gradually contributing more works.)

I cannot even find the Free Culture Foundation’s collection now, but I predicted that what would keep them from growing was a very narrow definition of what they were looking for — the licenses weren’t the issue; it was their expectations of people and of works that I found too exclusive.

Speaking of which, I believe you still work for the FSF; would you ask whomever is in charge of email to stop censoring Daniel Pocock? Thanks.

I realise you and I probably don’t agree on very much. What I think we do agree on is the importance of getting Free Culture and Free Software right. That leaves a lot of things to differ on, but make no mistake — I would like freesw.org to succeed. My hope is that it gets the most important things right.

Long Live Stallman and Happy Hacking.

Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0

« 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

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts