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

09.17.20

Germany Would Violate 3 International Agreements With the Unitary Patent, Says FFII

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents, Petitions at 7:04 am by Guest Editorial Team

Original by FFII

German Reichstag

Summary: Open Letter to the Bundesrat: “Germany will violate 3 international agreements with the Unitary Patent”

Dear Members of the Bundesrat,

Tomorrow Friday 17 September 2020, the Bundesrat will be asked to ratify the Unitary Patent and its Court (UPCA) (point 55 on the agenda). We would like to raise 4 objections regarding this ratification, as it carries the risk of violating multiple international agreements:

1. Software patents will be made enforceable without a debate

FFII eV represents the voice of 3000 software companies and independent software developers across Europe. Our software companies oppose the UPCA, as it will validate software patents through the caselaw of such a court, using the “technical effect” or “as such” loopholes, as confirmed by the European Commission in its 2012 Memo about the UPC. Software patents have negative effects on job creation, as small software companies don’t have the resources to defend themselves in court. Software patents are also opposed by a majority of companies in our sector, as more and more litigating companies (also called “patent trolls”) are trying to extract money.

We would like to see the UPCA being renegotiated, so that the European Court of Justice (CJEU) will have a say on software patents, as the legal basis is of the Unitary Patent is Art118 TFEU “creation of European intellectual property rights”. In 2012, the UK was allergic to the CJEU and asked for the removal of Art6-8, which would have given competence to the CJEU to decide on patent law. The patent industry also wanted their own court, and a monopoly on the interpretation of patent law. Experts are also divided on the question of whether the CJEU will be able to rule on patentable subject matter, as the UPCA has been designed to avoid the CJEU judges.

2. The UK is still listed as a “negotiating state” of the Agreement according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)

The United Kingdom is still listed as a country part of the Agreement, and the Ministry of Justice has resorted to very creative legal tricks in order to get the Treaty “into force”.

In June, the Ministry of Justice was saying the ratification by the UK was a requirement to get the Treaty into force:

“The fact that Great Britain broke the Convention as a result of Brexit does not prevent its implementation: the Regulations for entry into force of the Convention and its rules should ensure that all three are involved in the contract States, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Great Britain, already participate in the judicial system at the start of the Unified Patent Court. […]

Regardless of the fact that UK approval currently exists a departure from Great Britain has no influence on the applicability of the entry into force regulations in any case because these are to be interpreted in such a way that if one of these three states can not be foreseen by anyone, the entire entry into force for the does not hinder remaining participants.

On the 21st of July, the UK has de-ratified the UPCA on the 21st of July, by sending a Note Verbale to the Council of the European Union.

The UK is still a “Negotiating State” in the sense of Article 2(e) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The UK has not given its agreement for the international treaties whose texts it took part in drawing up and adopting (the UPCA and the two associated protocols) to enter into force. Thus, in addition to entry into force now being contrary to a literal reading of the relevant provisions of the Agreement and Protocols, there would appear to be no basis for entry into force under Article 24 VCLT.

As the UK is still listed as one of the countries in the UPCA Treaty as a seat of the Court for Pharmaceuticals, the Bundesrat MUST send back the UPCA to the European Commission for renegotiation. Germany cannot re-interpret the UPCA in order to unilaterally temporary redirect the workload of the London court to Paris and Munich.

3. Lack of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Art6 “a Tribunal established by law”

3a. Rules of Procedure not made by legislators

Despite the Brexit problem, the German Ministry of Justice should have presented to you, together with the bill, an analysis of the UPCA’s compliance with the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights). The UPCA is not compliant with the ECHR, as its rules of procedure are mabe by an obscure Administrative Committee, and this is in violation with Art6 ECHR, “a tribunal established by law“, where the ECHR’s jurisprudence requires that Parliament(s) [you] should have been involved in the drafting and ratification of those rules of procedure of the court.

Any democrat will understand that this jurisprudence is in place in order to avoid the creation of rogue tribunals, put in place by the executive power. This lack of compliance has been raised in the first constitutional complaint and mentioned in the 20th March 2020 decision of the Constitutional Court, but the Court did not rule on this point.

In Coëme Vs Belgium (22 juin 2000), the court said:

According to the case-law, the object of the term “established by law” in Article 6 of the Convention is to ensure “that the judicial organisation in a democratic society [does] not depend on the discretion of the Executive, but that it [is] regulated by law emanating from Parliament” (see Zand v. Austria, application no. 7360/76, Commission’s report of 12 October 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 15, pp. 70 and 80). Nor, in countries where the law is codified, can organisation of the judicial system be left to the discretion of the judicial authorities, although this does not mean that the courts do not have some latitude to interpret the relevant national legislation.

ECHR, Coëme e.a./Belgique, 22 juin 2000, Req. n ° 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 et 33210/96, §98

You can also find similar jurisprudence in other decisions:

ECHR, Pandjikidzé e.a./Géorgie, 27 oct 2009, Req. n° 30323/02 , §§ 104 et 105

ECHR, Savino e.a./Italie, 28 apr 2009, Req. n° 17214/05, 20329/05, 42113/04, §94

ECHR, Previti/Italie, 8 déc 2009, Req. n° 45291/06, §213

ECHR, Laventis/Lettonie, 28 nov 2002, Req. n° 58442/00, §114

ECHR, Zeynalov/Azerbaïdjan, 30 may 2013, Req. n° 31848/07, §30

ECHR, Momčilović/Serbie, 2 ape 2013, Req. n° 23103/07, §29

ECHR, Oleksandr Volkov/Ukraine, 9 jan 2013, Req. n° 21722/11, §151.

ECHR jurisprudence on Art6 “A tribunal established by law”

3b. Litigation will be more expensive for a single case

After the UPCA has been negotiated in 2012, this obscure Administrative Committee took the freedom to decide on the court fees. Those court fees are important for the “access to justice” and a very sensitive topic for SMEs. Those court fees will result in a 3x increase in the costs of litigation, for a simple case, and compared to the actual situation in Germany. This Administrative Committee took the freedom to decide on expensive court fees that will bare access to the Court, advised by an “expert committee” where no SME was represented, but where multinationals were (Nokia and BASF). We believe this is also in violation of the ECHR art6 “a tribunal established by law”, as this Administrative Committee does not have the power to legislate. It should have been your role as a legislator to decide what those amounts should have been.

4. UPCA is violating the “rule of law” (TFEU Art2), the EPO cannot be brought to court for maladministration

The UPCA is also violating the “rule of law” principle, enshrined in the German Constitution, and in the Article 2 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The European Patent Office (EPO) cannot be brought to Court for maladministration, and there are currently 4 pending cases in front of the German Constitutional Court for violation of such principle. The Court is expected to publish a decision on those complaints before the end of this year, which might have some profound impact on the architecture of the patent system in Europe. The German Ministry of Justice does not seem to want to wait for this important decision.

If those points are not seriously addressed, we will consider asking the Court to look again at the issue by filling a second Constitutional Complaint.

Best regards,

HENRION Benjamin

President of FFII eV

09.10.20

Passing New Laws to Criminalise Those Looking to Hold Criminals Accountable (or Striving to Inform the Public)

Posted in Deception, Law at 11:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Pirate ShipSummary: Under the false assumption that the general public is a bunch of criminals/pirates and people in positions of power are ‘responsible adults’ who must never be criticised new laws are being passed and we’re being left defenseless in the face of gross abuse of power (like things that Wikileaks exposed and Julian Assange now stands trial for)

FIRST, in the name of protecting minorities or vulnerable groups, they passed “hate speech” laws.

In the name of protecting women they set up anti-harassment teams, which on the surface seems commendable.

Then came colourful CoCs (vaguely worded and exceedingly broad, applicable retroactively as well) and concepts such as "tone-policing" (can’t criticise sponsors/patrons, can’t even calm people down). Social movements are, as expected, being used to demonise the messengers, basically leveraged as indirections.

Last month we wrote about how Bill Gates wanted to ban secure communications because he worried about what people said about him.

Earlier this week? “French Government To Make Insulting Mayors A Criminal Offense” (not clickbait; this is also home of the controversial “right to be forgotten” — typically meaning one’s ‘right’ to censor evidence of one’s own crimes).

So Benoît Battistelli and his ilk would be able to arrest their critics? For exposing or talking about crimes?

Where does this end?

What’s the endgame?

Social control media already polices speech by muting, throttling, de-platforming, shadowbanning etc. Is that not enough (yet)? When computer systems, including social control networks and PCs with back doors, offer no power to the user, cui bono?

09.05.20

Qt is Shooting Itself in the Foot Again

Posted in KDE, Law at 9:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

This can only help GNOME and GTK

Constantine's foot

Summary: Qt’s consideration of going proprietary is a disaster in the making, likely attributed to misguided managers; but it is still not “too late” to change their minds, reminding them of all the negative publicity they received from developers because of the old licence

THIS is a difficult subject to tackle, but having read several hundreds of old E-mails (Debian-Private) about Qt licensing in the mid-90s I feel compelled to say something.

“Seeing the many rants and flames about Qt (and by extension KDE) over this past week whilst examining Debian-Private archives, I can’t help but feel that with Qt6 the Qt folks (formerly Trolltech and Nokia) harm themselves greatly.”I first used KDE some time around 2000. My wife started using it in 2013. I use KDE on my main laptop and on a secondary laptop I use an older version of KDE (Qt4-based). I love the appearance of Qt widgets; I much prefer that to GTK/GNOME (I use GNOME3 on another secondary laptop and, having developed a bit with GTK since 2001, I have respect for GTK as well). Seeing the many rants and flames about Qt (and by extension KDE) over this past week whilst examining Debian-Private archives, I can’t help but feel that with Qt6 the Qt folks (formerly Trolltech and Nokia) harm themselves greatly. Months ago it became apparent that they’re eager to go proprietary again; KDE folks said they’d consider forking Qt if that happened, whereupon Qt issued some vaguely-worded statement that may raise more questions than it answers. Months down the line there’s still uncertainty about what might happen. It’s all in our Daily Links; nobody has talked about it or even brought up the subject for months (not because anything was tackled/resolved).

“…nobody has talked about it or even brought up the subject for months (not because anything was tackled/resolved).”The founder of KDE had already experienced Qt when working on LyX (a program that I love and have used for two decades) and he’s no longer involved. See what Bruce Perens said here about Miguel de Icaza’s perceived solution; there are many flamewars about Qt/KDE in the Debian-Private mailing list and a perception of bribery (to tolerate Qt).

The way things stand, it seems like Qt will maintain some special exemption for Free/libre software projects, including KDE. But a longstanding concern might be, will KDE basically help promote/market proprietary software which for many projects isn’t free to use, modify and so on? How is this going to work?

“But a longstanding concern might be, will KDE basically help promote/market proprietary software which for many projects isn’t free to use, modify and so on? How is this going to work?”It’s understandable that in 2020 many businesses struggle and try to somehow remain/become profitable. The pandemic makes it a lot harder. But if Qt goes ahead with its current plans (for a still-unreleased version) it may doom the entire thing, alienating developers and making legitimate once again all those 1990s complaints about Qt being present in GNU/Linux base systems. As if Qt is a tainted package that ought to be rejected by so-called ‘purists’ and pragmatists alike. Yes, they are totally pragmatic arguments against non-free software.

Qt has many bright engineers involved (favouring technical excellence over pure greed); over the years they moved from one company (or steward) to another and it wasn’t always clear how they’d ‘monetise’ their work (consulting, customisation, development services etc.) though the issue of money ought to be secondary when we talk about software freedom.

08.24.20

The Linux Foundation in 2020 Helps Serial GPL Violators Such as Microsoft Get Away With It

Posted in Deception, GPL, Law, Microsoft at 1:57 am by Guest Editorial Team

Microsoft got caught violating the GPL many times before, even inside the kernel (Linux)

Microsoft loves Linux Foundation

Linux Foundation lawyers are now literally recommending omitting copyright holders’ names and copyright dates from copyright notices in source code. Why would a lawyer recommend something so dumb? This is an obvious attempt to try to hinder GPL enforcement” (this past weekend, page here, the sole post from Steve Winslow)

Steve Winslow

08.23.20

Leak: FSFE Incurred Over €10,000 in Projected Losses Due to Outsourcing

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Law at 11:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Outsourcing persisted regardless

There is no Cloud, just other people's computers.

Summary: A look at the management (or mismanagement) of FSFE funds, based on an E-mail sent from Jonas Öberg, the FSFE’s Executive Director

THE FSFE found traction if not fame for calling “clown computing” somebody else’s computer (or derivatives to that effect; see above). We agree and it’s a catchy campaign/motto; it’s about the importance of independence/autonomy in computing.

But does the FSFE follow its own principles? Like almost everything in today’s FSFE, it’s all Germany. The site is hosted with PlusServer GmbH and the staff is hardly diverse (unless Europe just means Germany). “Happy Black Ribbon Day,” the leak’s source told us, alluding to a “[d]ay of remembrance for the victims of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes,” as Wikipedia puts it (that’s today).

Let’s examine events.

In the FSFE’s own words: “The Free Software Legal and Licensing Workshop (also known as the LLW) is organized every year by the FSFE to allow legal experts to discuss legal issues and best practices surrounding Free Software licences. This event has become the world’s foremost gathering of lawyers, technologists, and thought leaders on Free Software legal and licensing topics. With up to three days of talks in an informal and confidential atmosphere, the Workshop advances the state of the art of knowledge on topics ranging from license compliance to patent management, from project governance to corporate responsibility and even further to the cutting edge issues themselves.”

The event attracted about 90 individuals in 2015, then 120+ in 2017, about 120 in 2018 and about 130 in 2019 (according to their own tally). The event used to be organised by Matthias Kirschner and Polina Malaja, who is also in the Central CARE Team, basically Code of Conduct enforcer. CARE stands for CoC Active Response Ensurers. “We as a welcoming community,” it says, “encourage all participants to be excellent to each other.”

Even welcoming to Microsoft. It would be “rude” to say no…

Some of these people are full-time employees, so what are they doing all day long if not setting up such events (instead of paying “to contract an external event coordinator to carry out some of the activities in preparation for, and at the LLW, to offload work”)?

The event did not happen this year, based on the calendar of events, but then again many of their events got canceled because of COVID-19. This is what happened in 2018 when the numbers of people attending apparently deceased (contrary to expectations):

Subject: [GA] Interim report: LLW budget 2018
From: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org>
Date: 22/01/2018, 13:27
To: ga@lists.fsfe.org

Dear all,

First of all, my apologies for not sending you our proposed budget for 2018 yet. We’ve yet to agree on the whole budget proposal in the council. (And apologies for sending you so many mails on a Monday!)

However, I would like to bring your attention to the cost of organising the LLW 2018. This has been discussed in our legal team, but the team asked us to also brief the GA about it.

As you know, the Legal and Licensing Workshop is our premier legal event. It’s a high profile event which contribute greatly to the FSFE activities. The budget for the LLW has increased in line with the event growing, and in most cases the income generated from participation fee and sponsorships have surpassed that increase.

For this years LLW, there was a decision to contract an external event coordinator to carry out some of the activities in preparation for, and at the LLW, to offload work from Matthias and Polina.

Unfortunately, this has lead not only to an increase cost for the event coordinator, but also to an increased cost for the LLW location, owing to the contracted event coordinator failing to secure the venue agreed upon.

This means the new budget requested by our legal coordinator for the LLW 2018 is ca €74,000. This is a significant deviation from our previous calculation of €63,000, and much above the 2017 budget of €57,000. At this point, we are not certain if the income generated from the event will in fact surpass the increased costs, but the feeling is that it will.

However, unlike previous years, this means that the income generated from LLW sponsorships, or in relation to the LLW, will likely not cover the costs of maintaining the legal network.

To mitigate this, the legal team has recommended the contract with the event coordinator is terminated, but we feel that any other changes right now, so close to the event itself, would only be detrimental to the success of the event.

Rather, the intention is to go ahead with the plannning [sic] and costs as they are, organise a successful event, and then do a proper analysis of this after the event, such that the risk of this repeating 2019 can be avoided.

Best regards,


Jonas Öberg
Executive Director

FSFE e.V. – keeping the power of technology in your hands. Your support enables our work, please join us today http://fsfe.org/join
_______________________________________________
GA mailing list
GA@lists.fsfe.org

https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/ga

The signature ironically says “keeping the power of technology in your hands.” How about keeping one’s own events in one’s hands?

08.22.20

Leak: FSF/FSFE Trademark Dispute (FSF Demanding That FSFE Should Change the Organisation’s Name)

Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, FSF, Law at 4:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Using or misusing the FSF’s good name as a ‘cash machine’

Change

Summary: The FSF made demands for FSFE to change the name, the FSFE discussed the matter internally and Jonas Oberg, the FSFE’s Executive Director, wrote the leaked message (below) where he states: “So the framework agreement, as it stands, is not being honored from any side.”

SEVERAL months ago Richard Stallman told me that the FSFE’s relationship with the FSF was largely amicable. It was around this time that we also published FSF-Relationship-Framework.txt and explained why the FSFE taking money from Microsoft was potentially mean-spirited a move.

“…the FSFE taking money from Microsoft was potentially mean-spirited a move.”As it turns out, Stallman left out something that had happened 3 years earlier (and 2 years before he was pushed out, with the FSFE’s support for the coup).

Here is a letter from May 2017:

Subject: Re: FSF asking us to change our name II
From: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org>
Date: 30/05/2017, 15:31
To: Bernhard Reiter <bernhard@intevation.de>
CC: ga@fsfeurope.org

Hi Bernhard,

I largely agree with you, but I would like to ask for a clarification on this part:

I don’t see why. We should ask them to establish the agreed cooperation.

If I take an honest look at the framework agreement, I believe it’s phrased rather favourable towards the FSF, and a lot of what we would like to see — such as joint decision making on important issues related to Free Software — isn’t actually in the agreement aside from an intent to develop such a way in some hypothetical future.

And I can truly see why the FSF believes we are in violation of the agreement, at least on parts. Our work on the Radio Directive and other policy work I believe is an example of work that according to the agreement should be carried out by the FSF, and not the FSFE.

Our work on standards for cloud services is close to what’s reserved for the FSF. On the other part, there are a number of activities envisioned from the FSFE which we don’t do, or never did: operate the GNU Business Network, develop new free software, translate FSF position papers, recruit more volunteers for the GNU project, resell FSF merchandise, and so on.

So the framework agreement, as it stands, is not being honored from any side. What I understand from you is that you think we can push more on this:

We intend, in the future, after we have gained experience working together, to develop a system wherein these decisions are approved jointly by a specific list of several major FSFs.

Essentially, our message could be that now, after 15 years, we have the experience of working together. It’s not been a pleasurable experience, but we now know what the current tensions and activities are, which makes this a good time to now negotiate what such a system for join decision making would look like.

Is that close to what you intend?

Sincerely,


Jonas Öberg, Executive Director
Free Software Foundation Europe | jonas@fsfe.org
Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)

A few days later the following message was sent from the FSF:

Subject: FSFE
From: John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org>
Date: 02/06/2017, 15:50
To: Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro>

Hi Daniel,

Congratulations on your election to FSFE’s general assembly!

I’m wondering, if as part of your new position, you have been briefed on the current issues between FSF and FSFE.

I have been trying to discuss them with Jonas and Matthias for the last several years, but have gotten nowhere, and in fact things are now much worse than they were before. They made it clear at our last in-person meeting in April that they do not intend to change anything.

In your post at <https://danielpocock.com/risks-of-using-proprietary-software>, you expressed some of the same concerns FSF has. So I’m reaching out to you in the hopes that we might be able to figure out a solution, and also to hear anything you can share about plans you have for trying to address
your concerns from your new position. We could arrange a call, or we could discuss by email, if you are open to talking. Will you be at Debconf in Montreal?

I am also attaching a copy of the agreement FSFE made with us in order to use the FSF name, in case you have not seen it.

-john



John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B
http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS
Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <http://my.fsf.org/join>.

According to this, the FSF granted FSFE permission to use the name, based on the FSF-Relationship-Framework which we reproduced here a few months ago. In 2017, John Sullivan, the FSF’s Executive Director, sent an email to a newly-elected person from the FSFE’s general assembly describing how difficult it is to deal with people in FSFE. “It is clear from these emails that FSFE does not have the blessing of FSF to use the name,” the leak’s source tells us. Quite a few people seem to be familiar with this problem, which is somewhat of an ‘open secret’. The “FSFE has collected over 1 million euro of donations from Free Software supporters,” the source told us. “Using a name borrowed from FSF helped them get this money.”

“In 2017, John Sullivan, the FSF’s Executive Director, sent an email to a newly-elected person from the FSFE’s general assembly describing how difficult it is to deal with people in FSFE.”And it meanwhile looks like in Wikipedia FSFE’s self-promotional page has become a candidate for deletion, with the following anonymously stated reason: “Page replicates the organization’s own view of itself, almost transplanted verbatim from its own web site. Staff and members of the organization have been actively editing the page (see Reinhard Müller, Mxmehl). Name of the organization is in dispute, as they borrowed the name from FSF. The organization has less than 30 members, as listed on their own People page. Demographic data released by the last elected Fellowship Representative shows that interest in the organization is very limited outside Germany. Much of the organization’s work appears to be ambush marketing, for example, a city converts their computers to Free Software and the FSFE makes a lot of publicity trying to associate the decision with one of their campaigns, even if they were never involved. It is not clear what original work they have done themselves and therefore, without being either very big or having done some outstanding work of their own initiative, they are not particularly notable. If the page remains, it needs substantial work to include the history of the organization, how it has interacted with other organizations, volunteers and sponsors (Google) but there are not many Reliable Sources, as required by Wikipedia, to document those facts objectively.”

In recent years the FSFE has had a number of scandals for positions it took and decided to broadcast out in the open. Seeing that even the FSF is not happy with the FSFE’s stance, with hard evidence to prove it, seems reasonably newsworthy.

08.21.20

Why I Prefer GPL/Copyleft

Posted in BSD, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, GPL, Law at 3:32 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ripley and Alien: BSD licence, GPL licence

Summary: Copyright-based copyleft licences generally advance us towards the goal or the status quo where all software is free/libre (freedom-respecting) and abundant/available for all, without discrimination against anybody

THE latest guest post from figosdev (published this morning) was too polite to mention who said that BSD-type licences were a step back for freedom. That was me. I had been saying this to figosdev several times, but he never agreed. It’s one of the many things we cannot agree on (albeit we still agree on most things, both technical and political).

“Never contribute Free software to a framework controlled partly or fully by proprietary software companies. Never ever.”The only time code that I wrote was BSD-licensed (I always choose GPL by default) was when I was forced to relicense (or lose the right to have my code hosted in a repository). Some proprietary software company that lobbies for software patents made this licence choice for many thousands of volunteers and imposed that choice on all of them, without even a consultation. So the code would be either relicensed BSD or would be removed. It’s a real shame, isn’t it? At one point I was the top-ranked code contributor (number one position for overall number of downloads among almost 10,000 developers).

Lesson learned?

Never contribute Free software to a framework controlled partly or fully by proprietary software companies. Never ever.

“…if the goal is to put Free/libre software everywhere, then BSD contributes not towards it but against it.”In very simple terms, which don’t require a law degree to comprehend, a GPL-type licence (copyleft) protects one’s code from becoming proprietary software; the code is totally useful and usable, but the adopter is required to reciprocate by giving back improvements to it. BSD-type licences are just the opposite of it. Some call them “liberal” though it’s a misnomer as from the user’s point of view liberties are taken away (the “liberal” as a word alludes to the freedom one has to exploit and deny access to code).

Maybe GPL isn’t for everyone, or maybe people have been brainwashed by Microsoft proxies such as Black Duck to believe that GPL is neither beneficial nor desirable/popular. Either way, if the goal is to put Free/libre software everywhere, then BSD contributes not towards it but against it. Sure, BSD may be better than totally proprietary, but the end goal/outcome is black boxes. We don’t want that in a democratic society. It harms trust, it makes back doors easier to obscure/conceal, and it helps deny access to “improved” versions of software. Ever noticed how much Apple charges for the only computers permitted to run the Apple operating systems?

Melinda and Zoophilia Found in Tandem in the Illegal Pornographic ‘Stash’ of Bill Gates’ Engineer

Posted in Bill Gates, Law at 3:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

From the disclosure of NCMEC, received from Seattle’s Police Department (hashes removed by us, though we have all the originals to prove authenticity):

Melinda and Zoophilia

Summary: The files collected by the personal engineer of Bill and Melinda Gates (some stored on external media) keep getting weirder and weirder the closer one looks at the filenames; there are instances of zoophilia, sometimes padded by the name of the boss

Background:

« 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