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

03.26.20

Still Work in Progress: Getting Those 2,851 Pages of Police Report About Arrest for Pedophilia in Home of Bill Gates

Posted in Bill Gates, FSF, Microsoft at 2:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: It’s extremely difficult to get those police records, which were requested exactly one day before the media started attacking Richard Stallman (associating him with pedophiles based on a deliberate distortion)

IN part 8 (latest part) of our FSF series we reminded readers that media helped salvage Bill Gates; he had a major MIT-connected scandal, which involved pedophiles. The focus on Richard Stallman distracted from this (what had happened with Bill Gates at MIT) and then Stallman was forced out of MIT (despite having nothing to do with pedophiles, unlike Gates).

We published some coverage earlier this year and there’s no progress obtaining police records because of COVID-19. It has been over 6 months since the requests were first made. It has also been 6 or so months since Stallman was pushed out of the FSF.

“In an effort to better understand what (or who) might stand in the way of these police records, let’s consider staff at Medina Police Department where Mr. Gates lives.”“Bryan Lunduke published a recent online discussion he had with three others,” an associate told us yesterday. “Towards the end they talked about the OSI problem. But nothing they said was insightful, useful, or even cutting to the heart of the problem. It did however make me realize that the attack is at least two layers of abstraction away from their real target, that being software freedom. Specifically they are going after Freedom O, the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. That is in my opinion what these attacks are still about. The whining about ethic and all the individual lynchings are just a means towards the end of eliminating Freedom 0.”

The net effect of the media shifting focus to Stallman was great harm to software freedom (by false association with pedophilia — the thing which Bill Gates is in fact connected to). Talk about reversal by distortion.

In an effort to better understand what (or who) might stand in the way of these police records, let’s consider staff at Medina Police Department where Mr. Gates lives.

“Look how many people from Homeland Security work there,” someone told us, citing this now-deleted page (“404: The page cannot be found”). Of course their server runs Microsoft Windows (which means Microsoft controls it). Here’s a screenshot of the snapshot:

Medina police staff

Their chief came from “Fusion Center” (those who aren’t familiar with the concept should look it up):

Medina police's Steve Burns

“Started digging into who was working there during the arrest date,” someone told us. “Doesn’t look like he worked in Medina at the time but interesting that this small little town of elites has this level of local law enforcement.”

03.25.20

Targeted Attack Leveraging FSF Servers

Posted in FSF, Site News at 12:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Target

Summary: Targeted by a determined and persist perpetrator, I’ve received over 20,000 E-mails. And the weapon of choice was the FSF’s infrastructure, remotely misused against yours truly.

THOSE who read our IRC logs or follow us outside this site (e.g. social control media) would likely be aware of communications we had opened up with the FSF in the form of a report, support ticket, and correspondence.

“Leveraging Tor exit nodes, some party decided to ‘weaponise’ the FSF’s mailing lists to bombard my E-mail accounts several times per minute.”First of all, I’d like to commend the FSF for swift action, transparency and eventually an explanation (including technical aspects).

So what is it that happened? Well, it seems like more than a week ago someone (or someones) was trying to cause nuisance if not conflict (it was a nuisance, but I spoke to 3 people at the FSF and there was no conflict). Leveraging Tor exit nodes, some party decided to ‘weaponise’ the FSF’s mailing lists to bombard my E-mail accounts several times per minute. For several days. Non-stop.

“Suffice to say, it clogged things up and caused technical issues.”By week’s end I had received over 20,000 E-mails from the FSF’s mailman services. Suffice to say, it clogged things up and caused technical issues. Rather than flag as spam or report the FSF I contacted them, at the advice or Mr. Oliva, and the problem was resolved within less than a day (despite COVID-19 disruptions to workflows and LibrePlanet right there in the middle, keeping FSF staff very busy).

The timing of the incident was particularly inconvenient to all and its perpetrators remain unknown. We can only speculate about the motivations. This week I asked the FSF if I can interpret the situation as, “as far as we know only Roy was targeted by this” and John Sullivan responded with a yes.

The spam mails have stopped.

It’s worth noting that not one E-mail address of mine was targeted (the public address; there are more addresses). Two accounts were targeted, including a private one (which isn’t easy to find).

“It’s worth noting that not one E-mail address of mine was targeted (the public address; there are more addresses). Two accounts were targeted, including a private one (which isn’t easy to find).”So it seems rather clear that someone targeted me, specifically, and used FSF servers for this purpose.

“Given various recent events,” I told the FSF, “it’s rather clear that some people try driving a wedge and strive harm Free software groups. There’s ample evidence of it. Who would have the persistence to get 20,000 spam mails sent to my account from FSF servers?”

The mystery persists, but the FSF and us are in good terms. Many thanks and kind regards to Ruben Rodriguez, Zoë Kooyman, and John Sullivan.

03.18.20

Inside the Free Software Foundation (FSF) – Part VIII: Bill Gates Quietly Leaves Microsoft and Media Focuses Again on His Abuses (Instead of Richard Stallman)

Posted in Bill Gates, FSF, Microsoft at 4:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Free Speech and Free software

Summary: The media shifts back its attention to Bill Gates, who benefited from the media turning on Richard Stallman at MIT (just when Gates had a massive MIT scandal); Gates escaped Microsoft’s board a few days ago (strategic timing) and the Covid-19 chaos in Seattle makes it less likely that the police there will send the records it promised to us

IN THE previous part we spoke about false characterisations designed to demonise Stallman, painting him as a threat to the FSF because corporate media had twisted his words, likely as means of distracting from real scandals, including an MIT scandal that had nothing to do with Stallman (MIT had been raising money from Epstein and it was Bill Gates behind these payments).

Techrights has been working extra hard if not ‘overtime’ trying to get to the bottom of these things. 10 days ago there was supposed to be delivery of hundreds of pages of a police report about arrest for pedophilia at Bill Gates' own home (the total number of pages is almost 3,000, but the police department (PD) said it had split it into a dozen installments).

Was anything sent?

Take a while and take wild guess.

Did the PD send anything on the said date? A date which it itself had chosen and promised?

Nope.

Now they can use Covid-19 chaos to not even reply. It has hit Seattle quite badly.

Nevertheless, in the news we now see articles like “Bill Gates’s Charity Paradox” — basically blasting him just days after he escaped, announcing his departure from Microsoft at 5PM on a “national emergency” Friday when nobody would pay attention. So he left Microsoft on Friday amid chaos and he had also left another board (of a close friend). What is going on?

An associate of ours took note, as recently as hours ago, of longtime Microsoft spinners suddenly showing up in the press again, seemingly resurrected just to whitewash Gates and distract from actual reports about him (with actual substance).

Seeing what the PD has on Gates is important because the attacks on Stallman began one day after the request was made for police records. That does not mean there’s necessarily a connection, but no doubt the Stallman “MIT” stories helped distract from the Gates “MIT” bombshell (directly related to Epstein).

“It won’t be sent,” an associate hypothesised about the police record/report. “Seattle will use the chaos to cover for him. So it would be good to know just how much has Bill’s software been integrated into the PD and what level of access and control over the contained data Microsoft has granted itself through EULAs and other licensing.”

Regarding the arrest for pedophilia in Bill’s house (that’s a fact, there are court documents proving it), the media mostly ignores this and has not touched this in years.

“It’d be interesting if any of the mainstream “news” sources have the guts to point out to the public that he is responsible for the sad state of their computers,” the associate added. “Indirectly, he has made bad engineering acceptable in general and that will be his main legacy. This “Microsoft” way of thinking has resulted in a general acceptance and expectation of technical failure, even in non-Microsoft products.”

03.14.20

Cancel Culture and the Handbook for Destroying the Free Software Movement

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 4:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Guest article by Ted MacReilly and figosdev

Bad food culture

Summary: Roasting leaders and luminaries as a strategy of choice

THE cancellation of Richard Stallman has yet to end. He remains stifled, the public remains lied to, the liars (unlike their victims) are not held accountable, and the Free software movement is still weakened.

Along with other people who contribute to Techrights, we predicted some of this, months prior to it happening. How? The easiest way to predict the future is to notice ongoing patterns and processes that repeat. Then look for the beginnings of those patterns in the present.

At worst, this is slippery slope fallacy. But argument from fallacy is itself a fallacy, and just because something is a slippery slope doesn’t mean that its conclusion is false — only that it wrongly assumes the conclusion is necessarily true.

A lot of the time, things that are moving in a certain direction continue to move in that direction — one of the most famous laws of physics says more or less the same. Sometimes a force acts upon something and it changes, but there is a great deal of inertia in many things.

Stallman’s cancellation isn’t complete, and was already happening when it was predicted in June. Recently, someone online referred to a future point when Torvalds is fully cancelled. The truth is that he is already “cancelled enough” that he likely can’t and likely won’t stop any of the bad things that will happen to the Linux kernel from happening. The torch isn’t passed, but it’s now out of his hands. It’s too late, and he’s either tired, apathetic or afraid.

No one is likely to fork the Linux kernel, because if they do, it will be someone who cares about software freedom — and if you ask around the community of people who care about software freedom, there is nobody who will fork it. Alexandre Oliva, being the author of linux-libre, should probably know.

If someone was capable of making a truly libre fork of Linux to counter the increasingly corporate, increasingly DRM-infested, increasingly unlikely-to-remain-copylefted (as Microsoft, via the former Linux Foundation will be in charge of license enforcement) — Oliva would probably know them, or at least know of them. These people (probably) don’t exist. It’s wonderful that sometimes the most likely future isn’t the one we get. In that, there is always a little bit of hope — but it’s no cause for Hubris.

You can also look at what the developers most tuned into the future of freedom are doing. They’re shifting towards BSD — probably not because BSD is better for everybody, but because it’s less work to liberate it. If there isn’t anybody to fork Linux, and there doesn’t seem to be — then less work means it is more likely to happen. It isn’t necessarily ideal, but that doesn’t make it a dumb idea. Of course, it’s a possibility that after destroying Linux, they will turn to BSD. Hopefully by that time, people will be ready for the struggle.

The Handbook for Destroying the Free Software Movement could have been called “The History of destroying Free software.” Except it isn’t just history, it is going on right now at least as much as it was described 20 years ago. The tactics were already polished up by IBM — a company with a history as over-the-top toxic as anybody who might get cancelled today — when Microsoft adopted them and adapted them to fighting against Free software. Their “loves Linux” campaign is no different than the love bombing campaigns narcissists use to lure victims for sustained campaigns of abuse. These are also often called “charm offensives”.

They talk of patent pools (chapter 7 of the handbook is about the patent war, which has never ended) but continue to act as if they own Android — by continuing to demand royalties (rent seeking) and holding onto written agreements that they “own” the software we’ve created, with companies who merely redistribute it. Both narcissists and large corporations expend enormous energy trying to sustain their own monopolies, and recruit other narcissists (and smaller corporations) to attack anybody who stands against their abuse.

This has been used against both Richard Stallman and Alexandre Oliva. It has been used against Linus Torvalds and Eric S. Raymond. It has been used by the government — or the corporations that run it — against Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning. The lines between clinical narcissism, cult tactics and corporate monopolies are minor and technical. First they exploit, then they use bullying, lies and other abuse to “defend” the exploitation from anybody who stands up to it.

The handbook touches on how open source was weaponised early on against software freedom. It touches on how to isolate activists from their cause — something that continues to happen more and more. It talks about how marketing and propaganda can be used to polish corporate turds and undermine, then gradually control grassroots-developed software, and take over communities.

And none of it is really new, or obsolete. It just keeps going. The premises of the book have only gotten worse in the 8 or so months since it was written — more people cancelled, and suddenly every key project needs “new governance policies.” Here are a few quotes about that, from last June:

“Being closer to corporations, Open Source has more corporate culture in its processes. While the ‘Open source way’ may look better for letting everyone be a contributor, it carries with it extra requirements and additional reasons to exclude projects from consideration or people from projects.”

“Open Source brings organizational overhead and corporate culture into every project- you can be the leader of your own project and do what you want to with it, but now you shouldn’t- every project should have a community, a code of conduct that may ultimately threaten the structure of the leadership in the distant future, and a dedicated website.”

“Fortunately, Open Source brings all this overhead to a project in a way that makes it easier to steer or influence (or purchase) the direction of a project. And since for 20 years, companies like Microsoft have sought to buy, charge royalties for, influence or eliminate the work done by competitors, Open Source gives us (and even fights for) the foot in the door that we need to do so.”

This is all about ownership — as a synonym for control of the software we created specifically to be independent of monopolies. Their goal: as with clinical narcissists, is to make us dependent on them, their decisions, their infrastructure. We fought so hard to be able to do our own thing, just to hand the reins back to IBM and Microsoft.

We predicted the sale of Red Hat — the cancellation of Stallman — some of us even predicted USB drives and (compressed audio) music libraries. And it’s really like predicting what a puzzle will look like, when most of the pieces are already in place. You can learn to do it too — look at the picture, find the spot where the next step is missing, and guess what is most likely to fit the rest. You can’t always be right, but be grateful for that — we live in a world that seems to want very badly to kick off a new dark age, when the goal of intellectuals and advocates of freedom is to keep the enlightenment from dying.

Computing is increasingly the basis for modern communication, book publishing, education, entertainment, finding new medicines, discovering the universe outside our solar system — not to mention the advocacy we do for every political cause you can imagine. The more these monopolies control our computing, they more they control everything else. Society can’t afford that — the human race itself (these days) may not be able to afford that.

Depending on whether it is controlled by as many everyday (grassroots, not astroturfed) people as possible — which Free software supports, but “open source” sells off to the highest bidder (No? Who owns GitHub? Who owns Red Hat?) computing becomes either great power in all our hands — or great power against all of us. With the realisation that every company wants to put “AI”, facial-recognition and always-on microphones around us everywhere we go (our phones, our cars, our homes — even hotels, stores and restaurants) our lives are more like those of cattle with every year of “progress” that technology makes.

Being Luddites won’t likely help much. To actually prevent this shift in the human existence from continuing, we would have to go to space to take out all the cubesats. We live in a futuristic world where robots are flying around, murdering innocent Yemeni children — civilians. We are already surrounded and our lives are inundated with this technology in our personal lives, and on the land, in the sea and the sky. There is nowhere left to run, and becoming Amish won’t take down the network that we are enmeshed with.

Our only freedom will come from transforming (and yes, to a sane and relatively small degree, limiting) this vast array of human technology so that it exists on our own terms — to have the technology that we consent to, rather than have our technology act as a blank cheque for the largest corporations to do practically whatever they want with us. Because they’re already doing it, and for years they’ve worked to control even the activism we devoted decades to — to wriggle free from their stifling electronic grasp.

To regain control of what we built to be free of theirs, they’ve had to use social manipulation, political and marketing tactics to wrest our own communities and our own organisations from us. What once were sponsors are now board members and project leaders. The United States certainly has its share of political problems; though to do real justice to the level of absurdity that has taken over the Free software world, the USA would have to elect the Queen of England as its president — or simply join the United Kingdom.

The remnants of the Free software movement are whatever the monopolies are comfortable with — minus our founders, minus anybody who might make real trouble for them. We fought for independence, we gave people the vote — and the people were manipulated into voting for suppression and being controlled. There is no way to undo that but to struggle for a new era of digital independence. While the unwashed masses cry out that everything is alright, we know that doesn’t ring true. And we know their tactics, because history proves those rarely change.

The handbook was written by recalling, off the cuff, all the dirtiest deeds, all the smarmiest lies, all the little rewrites of what actually happened — Torvalds actually made a kernel. We gave him an operating system and let idiots pretend it was his own. Why was that stupid? Because the operating system actually stood for something.

What did Linus stand for? You’re looking at it today — the takeover and surrender of software freedom to corporations. That’s all “open source” is now. Watch him wearing the t-shirt, in “Revolution OS” — nearly 20 years later we still pretend that Linus ever gave a damn about our digital freedom at all. Oh sure, he’s better than Greg. That’s why they cancelled him — they knew he would choose a better successor. They knew he at least cared about not breaking userspace — that was the area where Linus showed integrity: as an engineer.

But as a person? He conflated our having integrity, of actually standing for something, with extremism. That was extremely self-serving, dishonest, and a complete scumbag move. Linus, you’re a sellout — and you always were. But we could count on Torvalds to bash most of the bad companies. Microsoft does that too — before buying them.

Cancelling Torvalds is still a bad idea though; it helps the monopolies more than it hurts Torvalds. His career (the part of it we care about at least) is practically over, and it wouldn’t be surprising if he were happy with that. Whatever he hoped to achieve, has more or less happened already. Like George Harrison after the breakup of the Beatles, Torvalds can do pretty much whatever he wants — except what he was doing before. And with him out of the way, the takeover you still assist by attributing GNU to corporate sellouts and other dubious individuals, can continue without worrying about who might stand up to it.

Isn’t it amazing that we all found good reasons to get rid of everyone in that category — all in the space of a year?

It wasn’t difficult to tie recent happenings — up to June 2019 — to quotes from the Halloween documents from 1998. The tactics are the same, but the lies to justify the tactics have evolved.

Managing a brand is a matter of storytelling. When people say “I’ve heard that one already”, corporations just tell another one. The special effects get better, the lines get updated here and there, but the differences between the old story and the new are superficial.

Our job is to be free. Their job is to control. If we let them manage our struggle against them, what do you actually think will happen?

Slippery slope? It’s more like a very long, straight drop. Welcome to hell, Free software advocates.

Now what?

Since cancel culture is at the centre of this change of ownership — indeed it is the excuse for the change — what follows are some insights from of all places, Youtube. Many of these insights about cancel culture predate Stallman’s cancellation. Since he has more integrity than Torvalds, and more integrity then Raymond, his cancellation is the one to worry about most. Though every unfair cancellation gives our would-be masters more control, and that’s why we should still fight for Torvalds and Raymond regardless of what we think of them as individuals.

It’s not even about “the enemy of my enemy” — it’s simply about the objectives of control vs the objectives of freedom. If you want to fight the corporate cults, you have to understand the corporate cults. That’s why the handbook was (really) written, and why cancel culture is a topic every Free software advocate needs to understand, now.

But first, the EFF recently posted a wonderful and relevant interview with Ada Palmer. Palmer talks about how censorship amounts to falsifying history — and how acts of censorship serve to remind (and help convince) people who is really “in charge.” In this sense, censorship is an act of colonialism.

You are encouraged, by the way, to refer to colonialism — the occupation and control of a human culture by an outside (colonising) force, as colonialism or as exploitation, rather than “tribalism”. The latter puts both the great occupying forces, and the people who rightfully stand against them, on equal ground — reducing each to petty or arbitrary disputes.

That miscommunication only assists the colonisers and diminishes those who are fighting against occupation. Open source has openly instigated this miscommunication and miscategorisation for many years, acting as if the unwillingness of Free software to abandon its own mission for their book of love letters to Microsoft and Apple is due to nothing more significant than a petulant and childish attitude.

Heading for Youtube, Ayishat Akanbi talks about why cancel culture is mob culture.

Emily Katherine delivers a 15-minute, extremely intelligent rant-slash-thesis on the psychology of cancel culture, including its effects.

Dave Chappelle, in Sticks and Stones, does an impression of cancel culture — the twist? As far as he’s concerned, cancel culture is all of us: “the audience.” He’s probably right.

Hafeez highlights the narcissism and arrogance of cancel culture.

While Viva Frei explains (definitely start at 5:28 if you want to get to what he’s really talking about) that cancel culture induces fear in innocent and intelligent people, and how it is stifling, suppressive and incredibly demanding.

A couple of worthwhile quotes:

“I believe that the likelihood of coming to the right decisions in the face of suppression [suppressed opposing opinions] are in fact decreased.” (11:13)

“The free exchange of ideas is the most valuable intellectual currency” — said during the talk, this quote is displayed again at the end of the video.

Christina Red explains that cancel culture lacks nuance, and suppresses activism — which as we have said several times, is exactly what monopolies are using it for.

Finally, Andrew Yang says that cancel culture is “excessively punitive and vindictive” and goes on to imply that a diverse community is unlikely to agree on everything. The community he is referring to is the Asian-American community; which he says is very diverse — thus unlikely to all agree with him.

The notion that true diversity will naturally result in diversity of opinion is perhaps central to arguments against the legitimacy of cancel culture. If you censor opinions to protect Asian-Americans like Yang, or to protect women like Christina Red, how do you ensure you won’t ultimately censor the same people you are trying to protect? In practice, this is not a baseless concern.

Cancel culture is one of those ideologies that is so extreme, that applying it fairly will ultimately hurt every person it claims to protect — either directly or indirectly. When authoritarians seek control, they usually lie and convince each person “this will only affect those who deserve it.” Yet it controls who you are allowed to listen to, what you are allowed to attend, who you are allowed to be friends with — and sometimes who you are even allowed to quote.

It seeks to control our ideas, or communication, our association. And it is being used a little too successfully against our freedom. If you’re still falling for this absolute cult tactic — take a step back, and rethink this.

How long until you’re cancelled too? Do you really believe this corporate culture will still tolerate you, the moment you cease to entertain its authority over your own quest for knowledge and a better society? There’s simply no evidence of that at all.

The organisations that are bringing this monopolistic control tactic into their governance, are ending any freedom you have to develop the software — unless you can create your own version, like the Linux fork that probably won’t exist.

Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (public domain)

03.08.20

Inside the Free Software Foundation (FSF) – Part VII: Richard Stallman Still Suffers From a False Narratives Epidemic

Posted in Bill Gates, Deception, FSF, GNU/Linux at 5:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The media continues to speak about “coronavirus,” but rarely if ever does it speak about child exploitation that’s connected to Microsoft’s co-founder, who pays a lot of money for the media to hail him as a benevolent genius (after decades of crimes and arrests)

Free Speech and Free software

Summary: People who compete for the crown of Richard M. Stallman aren’t reluctant to portray him as something he’s patently not or even pretend to be his friends whilst behind the scenes working to destroy him, cancelling his whole legacy of accomplishments in the process

IN THE last part we reminded readers that for a number of decades the founder of the FSF had repeatedly promoted equality and feminism. It’s unfair, given his track record, to label him “sexist” or “chauvinist” or whatever (I can think of many high-profile people worthy of these labels, Stallman certainly isn’t one). A decade ago people tried to twist the word “virgin” to portray Stallman as “sexist” even though both genders can be virgins and he was referring by means of semantic equivalence to people who never before used his text editor, GNU Emacs. Here in the UK when people use the word “Virgin” they typically refer to a company that operates across many sectors (rail, air travel, broadband and so on).

“A decade ago people tried to twist the word “virgin” to portray Stallman as “sexist” even though both genders can be virgins and he was referring by means of semantic equivalence to people who never before used his text editor, GNU Emacs.”Adrienne G. Thompson cited us, adding: “I’m a woman. Thanks to #RMS, #GNUcgraph is a #GNU package with users worldwide from universities to electronics sector industries! RMS has always welcomed my participation and input. #RichardStallman has not departed – he remains Chief Executive of GNU!”

From what we can gather, those working to overthrow Stallman and those brainwashing/blackmailing him into that ‘wilful’ departure (by means of public shaming in press releases, even from GNU projects such as GNOME or groups like SFC) are the same types who had been working to ensure that people whose political views or worldview (e.g. with respect to corporations) differ from their own are altogether excluded from decision-making processes, based on arbitrary new rules and subjective notions of “ethics” (objectivity in that regard cannot be based on the UN, whose pertinent members have conflicting views on the matter and policies change over time). Stallman did not do anything illegal and his words too were twisted to construct a false narrative, boosted by Microsoft tabloids, eager to portray Stallman as supportive of Epstein (whom he had strongly condemned) whilst totally ignoring the actual connection to Epstein found in Bill Gates (who not only praised Epstein but also chose to hang out with him despite knowing what he had done). We’re still waiting for the police in Seattle to get back to us with details about the arrest for pedophilia in Bill Gates’ home. Later this week it will have been 6 months since the request was made. They’ve sent us not a single page (so far). The request was made exactly one day before the media owned by a close friend of Bill Gates started attacking Stallman, creating an MIT scandal that wasn’t Gates’ own. Gates used Epstein to funnel millions of dollars into MIT — something that MIT tries hard to cover up even this year. Rather than investigate the matter it just asked Bill Gates’ lawyers for a comment. We’re not kidding!

“We’re still investigating and later this week we expect to have an update on the police query (into the arrest for pedophilia in Bill Gates’ home).”This whole affair, which some have dubbed “Free software 9/11,” isn’t quite over yet. We’re still investigating and later this week we expect to have an update on the police query (into the arrest for pedophilia in Bill Gates’ home). It’s a fact, the courts have it documented.

The FSF is no safe place either, even if most of the board continues to support Stallman (we know this for a fact).

“It took me a while to realize that even someone who Stallman told me he trusted a lot,” one person once told me, “was actually working to stab his back, and lying to my face while at that. Very sad, but we’ll work that out eventually.”

Politics aren’t a lot of fun. They’re divisive and dirty. Remember that the FBI put a convicted pedophile (people like Sigurdur Thordarson are generally easier to control by threats/blackmail because dark secrets are a form of leverage; he was arrested later) as a mole inside Wikileaks (to spy on everyone). Iceland wasn’t happy about it and its former Minister of the Interior Ögmundur Jónasson said that “they sent a planeload of FBI agents to Iceland seeking our cooperation in what I understood as an operation set up to frame Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.”

Never underestimate the corporate interests and the powers seeking to remove Stallman, deleting his legacy and making him unspeakable or synonymous with sexual abuse.

03.07.20

Inside the Free Software Foundation (FSF) – Part VI: The FSF Without Richard Stallman Emphasises Tolerance, But It’s a Hollow Façade

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux at 12:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The ‘seat warmer’ or ‘seat-filling’ mentality can actually alienate women (my wife says it’s known as “clappers” in the context of beauty pageants)

Free Speech and Free software

Summary: We’re led to think that after Stallman’s departure women are suddenly “safe” or “welcomed”; the truth of the matter is, Stallman was never a barrier to their acceptance and the real obstacle is women’s perception that they’re used as pseudo-political pawns

THINGS aren’t so grim at the FSF; Stallman and the FSF can cooperate through the GNU Project. People who ‘ousted’ Stallman could only convince him to step aside from the FSF but not from his “baby” (what he calls GNU).

As we've just shown or included in Daily Links, the official FSF Blog published “Celebrating women in free software for International Women’s Day” and as a supporter of women’s rights himself, we’re pretty certain Stallman is (or would be) happy to see that.

“People who ‘ousted’ Stallman could only convince him to step aside from the FSF but not from his “baby” (what he calls GNU).”Throughout the day today I saw various examples of corporate exploitation by companies looking to make a profit from hijacking women’s rights (there will be examples in tomorrow’s IRC logs). That’s not to say that there’s something wrong with this day; how it is misused by for-profit men-run companies is the problem. Like February 14th, this one too they’re looking to exploit for little but money-making. The Linux Foundation too is guilty of that and hours ago, linking to a puff piece in a Microsoft propaganda site that defames Stallman, the sole editor of Linux.com (a Linux Foundation site) tweeted: “Suddenly Microsoft has become a company I can say I now admire and ‘love’.”

Congrats, Linux Foundation. You are another Microsoft now. It worked. You are rapidly being absorbed and there’s a point of no return.

“At the moment, from what we can gather, LibrePlanet will accept a wide range of corporate sponsors and reciprocate.”You can either support Linux or the Linux Foundation. Not both. Those two things aren’t compatible anymore.

As for the FSF, it emulated the Code of Conduct and chooses a 'business model' reminiscent of the Linux Foundation. This concerns us just a bit. While Stallman was at the helm some of the things the FSF nowadays does just weren’t done.

“Also,” an associate of ours noted, “note that [particular groups] are being weaponized against Software Freedom. They will try to drag you into fight about [their causes]. Stay focused on the freedom they try to distract from.”

We don’t want to ‘offend’ the wrong people, as can happen when one brings up subjects like this one. “It’s a very big case which touches on two big problems,” our associate remarked, “though one is actually part of the other. The infiltration and hijacking of FOSS from within projects and organizations is part of the bigger fight over who controls and monitors communications (computers) in the world.”

“While Stallman was at the helm some of the things the FSF nowadays does just weren’t done.”At the moment, from what we can gather, LibrePlanet will accept a wide range of corporate sponsors and reciprocate. Will Google be one of those? We don’t know for sure, but SFC was happy to take money from both Google and Microsoft for a conference about copyleft (which ironically Google and Microsoft attack).

This does not look like a good trajectory. Not at all. Taking money from one’s opposition compromises oneself and months after the said sponsorship the SFC pushed Stallman to leave the FSF.

We’ve meanwhile learned about the scary possibility that the upcoming LibrePlanet (which isn’t canceled for health reasons by the way) will be used to grant SFC people an award. And for what? Ousting the FSF’s own founder?

“As we said almost 6 months ago, Kuhn was responsible (to a large degree; there were others) for what happened.”“Some media pressure about the clearly biased schedule,” one person told us, “and inquiries about Richard Stallman’s and Bradley Kuhn’s being eligible to the award, might help the FSF do the right things…”

As we said almost 6 months ago, Kuhn was responsible (to a large degree; there were others) for what happened. He leveraged social causes to rationalise the current leadership vacuum the FSF still experiences the following year. After that he left the FSF’s board, abandoning the very Board that he harmed (2 people other than him were no longer there). So he left somewhat of an empty shell.

“Dear organisers of LibrePlanet (and anonymous committee), please be aware that community members are ready to revolt if you reward the ousters of your own founder, based on deliberate misinformation and a campaign of whispers.”For that, if he ever receives an FSF award, he deserves much condemnation/scolding. For decades he did do some commendable work, but in recent years he and Outreachy (a colleague) often led witch-hunts that instead of supporting women felt like an exploitation of feminism for an SFC power grab, trying to present (or get across) SFC as the more ethical alternative not just to SFLC (which it had disputes with) but FSF as well.

Dear organisers of LibrePlanet (and anonymous committee), please be aware that community members are ready to revolt if you reward the ousters of your own founder, based on deliberate misinformation and a campaign of whispers.

03.05.20

Inside the Free Software Foundation (FSF) – Part V: Richard Stallman is Not Going Away (Any Time Soon)

Posted in FSF at 8:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Free Speech and Free software

Summary: The next step towards FSF success would be mending its relationship with Richard Stallman through the GNU Project

THE people who basically ousted Stallman (or convinced him that it was critical for him to step down) aren’t getting their way. Some aren’t even in the FSF anymore. They did their damage and ran away.

“It is actually not as bad as some people were led to believe or simply assume.”A lot of people are pessimistic about the relationship between the GNU Project (still headed by Stallman) and the FSF. Rest assured if you’re among those people — Stallman (RMS) and the FSF will get along fine. They already work on some document to that effect, with an early sort of draft being publicly available.

What about the management and the board of the FSF? It is actually not as bad as some people were led to believe or simply assume.

“Much of the board, however, is still “scared,” we’ve learned, and doesn’t stand up to the ousters of RMS, or even against the false narrative put forth to staff.”“It’s not that the board is compromised,” one party told us. “I think [pro-RMS people] still have a majority.”

Much of the board, however, is still “scared,” we’ve learned, and doesn’t stand up to the ousters of RMS, or even against the false narrative put forth to staff. There’s an effort to make people around the FSF believe that RMS is a major liability, a danger, and allowing him anywhere near the FSF again would lead to devastating effects.

Deep inside, we’ve learned, the majority of the board is still on RMS’s side.

03.02.20

FSF Canary

Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux at 8:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Canary
Canary in the Boston mine

Original blog post by the FSF's interim co-president

Previously:

I‘m yet to publish the final planned inStallmant of the series (it’s not at all about the FSF), but it is still at least a few days away, and I don’t wish to keep anyone holding their breaths that long.

After that, mark these words: this bird won’t sing like this any more, so here’s a ”virtual canary” (Serinus canaria indomitus) instead. It’s not needed, but it makes for a much happier home when it’s only in the unlocked cage when it wants to. It takes care of itself, but you may want to check back, once in a while, whether it hasn’t flown away.

Live long, happy and free, and prosper ethically,

So blong…


Copyright 2007-2020 Alexandre Oliva

Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this entire document worldwide without royalty, provided the copyright notice, the document’s official URL, and this permission notice are preserved.

The following licensing terms also apply to all documents and postings in this blog that don’t contain a copyright notice of their own, or that contain a notice equivalent to the one above, and whose copyright can be reasonably assumed to be held by Alexandre Oliva.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License BY-SA (Attribution ShareAlike) 3.0 Unported. To see a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

« 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