03.27.20
Posted in Deception, Microsoft, OIN, Patents at 7:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Promoting and protecting software patents while pretending to protect people (from patent trolls)
From LOT Network’s latest IRS filing [PDF]. The self-appointed chief pays himself a salary of over half a million dollars, tax exempted, for 45 hours of work. All this by collecting membership fees for his glorified ‘patent club’.
Swinging from big profits to big losses and then no visibility anymore. They surface again in the media to tell us what an awesome company Microsoft is, even as purveyor of patent blackmail and backer of the world’s biggest patent trolls.
Summary: The ugly story of Open Invention Network (OIN) and LOT; today we take a closer look at LOT and highlight a pattern of ‘cross-pollination’ (people in both OIN and LOT, even at the same time)
LAST night we learned something a tad disturbing. We had heard all sorts of things about OIN and LOT Network, whose business model is similar; they are in some sense inseparable and their “charity” (or “non-profit”) status is as dubious as the Linux Foundation‘s because they’re corporate front groups.
Remember that the enemy of OIN (and LOT) isn’t the likes of Microsoft (heck, they spread the lie that “Microsoft loves Linux” now that Microsoft is a member!). The enemy of OIN is the community of developers. Real communities. Or people like us, who oppose software patents. OIN is big patent pool if not cartel protecting software patents, including Red Hat’s. They tell us those patents are “OK” and “Safe”. Need we mention that since Red Hat’s CEO became President at IBM (appointment effective next month) the company has filed yet more extortionate lawsuits against companies, using dubious software patents? Nothing is really changing, but they want to extinguish their critics. They were very giddy to see Richard Stallman go because of an online lynch mob and dishonest press (IBM-connected media — even the very same publisher — participated in this defamation a year after it had caused Linus Torvalds to be removed from his own project though he returned later).
“Remember that the enemy of OIN (and LOT) isn’t the likes of Microsoft (heck, they spread the lie that “Microsoft loves Linux” now that Microsoft is a member!). The enemy of OIN is the community of developers. Real communities. Or people like us, who oppose software patents.”When people from the community of developers “join” OIN are they signing away their autonomy to Microsoft, IBM etc. just like with CLAs? Building a large community-hostile aggregation, in effect thinking they defend themselves from patent trolls (OIN and LOT do no such thing; this is false marketing; They’re even run by trolls and oftentimes help trolls).
Look who’s running them. Look closely. Those people are opposing authentic and legitimate causes of actual activists, looking to abolish software patents.
“Now, as it turns out, based on new information, OIN and LOT Network are run by the same people or have ‘cross-pollination’ (people with E-mail addresses in both domains).”Remember that the same people run IBM and OIN’s first CEO came from IBM. Also bear in mind that IBM still lobbies against the community’s interest when it comes to patent law.
Now, as it turns out, based on new information, OIN and LOT Network are run by the same people or have ‘cross-pollination’ (people with E-mail addresses in both domains). People like Valer Mischenko. Alarm bell and warnings all over this, so we’ve ended up researching the matter.
The trigger point was the affiliation of Valer Mischenko. We don’t know if he works for OIN, LOT, and if the two are connected. All we know is that he’s still listed as working for OIN and he’s mass-mailing developers to get them to join LOT. So he’s wearing two hats. Or swapping hats.
8 years ago he still worked for NLnet and published this article with a bio that said “Before he started working with NLnet in 2007 he worked as Operations Manager and Director within several bigger and smaller ICT companies in The Netherlands and abroad.”
“LOT is connected to IAM, the patent trolls’ front group.”Then he moved to OIN. As per a page from four years ago: “Long involvement in open source and open innovation. Currently helping to build out a no-fly-zone around Linux with Open Invention Network.”
He is listed here as “Regional Director, Licensing” at OIN, noting that: “Previously he was general director of NLnet Foundation, a charity which stimulates network research and development in the domain of Internet technology. Prior to NLnet he worked as COO within several ICT companies.”
But now he has a LOT address. LOT is connected to IAM, the patent trolls’ front group. They’re proud of this. LOT has long been advocated by Microsoft circles as well… and weeks apart Microsoft joined both LOT and OIN (LOT first), whereupon it received lots of marketing/PR in return. It’s almost as though there had been a defection, with OIN’s Mirko Boehm perpetuating Microsoft lies such as “Microsoft loves Linux” (well, maybe he loves the money they offered).
LOT identifies itself as “Promotion of Business (Community Improvement, Capacity Building)” and Mischenko called it a “non-profit.”
“Hope to see you among our members soon,” he wrote to one developer. We imagine he sent it to countless others, trying to get them to sign this second and latest version of their agreement form. We can see what LOT Network gets from it. As for developers? They get virtually nothing out of it. That acts more like a waiver, like a CLA.
“That acts more like a waiver, like a CLA.”Notice how, at present (or most recently), LOT was losing millions of dollars to enrich a millionaire and oligarchs (billionaires) he fronts for. Remember where he came from (before LOT). We covered this in the past.
At first he managed to cover his humongous salary, which would make him a million bucks in less than 2 years. But in recent years he reported massive losses… (though he still netted a huge salary)
“At first he managed to cover his humongous salary, which would make him a million bucks in less than 2 years.”He then sold out to Microsoft (months later). The filing corresponds to about 10 months earlier and no more filings are available… since 2017 (that we can access anyway).
Let’s examine what they try to get developers to sign electronically (we reproduce this in full below in case they change it, which is likely if not inevitable):
THIS LOT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into upon the undersigned LOT User’s submission of a signed copy of the completed Agreement to the LOT Administrator, and is effective as to that LOT User upon the date of such submission (the “Effective Date”), whereby such LOT User becomes a party to this Agreement on behalf of itself and its Affiliates and becomes bound by the terms and conditions. This Agreement is by and between the undersigned LOT User and all other current and future LOT Users.
NOW THEREFORE, each LOT User agrees as follows.
1. License Grant and Release
1.1. Grant of License and Release. With respect to each of its Subject Patents, and subject to the conditions and limitations of this Agreement, each Licensor hereby grants to every Licensee a present, fully vested and irrevocable (except as provided in Section 2 below):
(a) worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, non-transferable (subject to the provisions of Section 2 below) license to make, have made, operate, have operated, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and otherwise distribute Products and Services at any time on or after any Transfer of the respective Subject Patent to an Assertion Entity; and
(b) release, effective immediately prior to first Transfer of the respective Subject Patent to an Assertion Entity, of any and all claims, liabilities and damages for all Infringement of the respective Subject Patent occurring prior to the date of such Transfer of the respective Subject Patent.
1.2. Waiver and Immunity. With respect to each Subject Patent of the Licensor, the License constitutes a present, fully vested and irrevocable (except as provided in Section 2 below) waiver of the right under the respective Subject Patent for any Assertion Entity to make any Patent Assertion of the respective Subject Patent against any Licensee or with respect to any Licensee’s Products and Services. The License further includes immunity following first Transfer of the respective Subject Patent to an Assertion Entity for use, reproduction, and further sale, offer for sale, and distribution of the Licensee’s Products and Services by a distributor, reseller, re-licensor or customer of the Licensee, including reproduction and distribution of authorized copies of software sold or otherwise distributed (including by license of copies) by such Licensee.
1.3. No Other Rights. Except as expressly set forth in Sections 1 and 2 no license or right under any Patents is granted by this Agreement, whether by implication, estoppel, or otherwise. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licenses do not release any claims, liabilities or damages for Infringement or otherwise restrict or limit any Patent Assertion of a Subject Patent that has not been Transferred to an Assertion Entity, including against any Licensee or with respect to any Licensee’s Products and Services.
1.4. Return of Financial Benefit. Each LOT User agrees that any payment due to or received by such LOT User or its Affiliates (a “Receiving LOT User”), after becoming a LOT User or its Affiliate, resulting from any Patent Assertion by an Assertion Entity against an entity that at the time of the Patent Assertion is a LOT User or its Affiliate (a “Paying LOT User”), to the extent that such Patent Assertion is based on any of the Receiving LOT User’s Patents that were Transferred by the Receiving LOT User to an Assertion Entity less than two (2) years prior to the Receiving LOT User becoming a LOT User or its Affiliate (and where the payment due or received is not the result of an agreement between the Receiving LOT User and the Paying LOT User), will be immediately cancelled or returned to the Paying LOT User against whom such Patent Assertion is made.
1.5. Full Force and Effect. All Licenses granted in this Agreement are intended to and shall run with the Subject Patents to which they pertain for the full duration of such Subject Patents and be binding on subsequent owners and licensees. Any transfer or grant of rights in or to a Licensor’s Subject Patent(s), whether by such Licensor or any subsequent transferee, shall be subject to the Licenses and continuing obligations of this Agreement with respect to such Subject Patent(s).
2. Assignment, Change of Control, Withdrawal and Amendment
2.1. Assignment. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.2 below and except as set forth in the next sentence, no LOT User, Licensor or Licensee or their respective Affiliates may assign this Agreement or its rights hereunder, including but not limited to by operation of law, and any attempt to do so shall be void. A LOT User may assign this Agreement to its Affiliate solely as necessary to effect a corporate reorganization of such LOT User that does not constitute a Change of Control.
2.2. Change of Control.
(a) LOT User. In the event that a LOT User undergoes a Change of Control, whether during or after its Participation Period, by an acquirer that is not and does not become a LOT User or an Affiliate of a LOT User within its Participation Period during the six (6) month period after the effective date of such Change of Control, then the LOT User and all of its Affiliates will be deemed to have withdrawn from this Agreement, effective six (6) months after the effective date of such Change of Control. Notwithstanding Section 6.1, an acquirer and its Affiliates prior to the Change of Control will not be considered to become an Affiliate of the LOT User under this Agreement merely by virtue of having acquired Control of the LOT User.
(b) Affiliate of a LOT User. If an Entity ceases to be an Affiliate of a LOT User and does not become a LOT User prior to the time it ceases to be an Affiliate, then such Entity will be deemed to have withdrawn from this Agreement, effective as of the date it ceases to be an Affiliate of the respective LOT User.
(c) Notice. In order to allow the LOT Administrator to determine a withdrawal date under this Section 2.2, the LOT User agrees to inform the LOT Administrator within thirty (30) days of a Change of Control of the LOT User of the fact of such Change of Control and its respective effective date.
2.3. Withdrawal. A LOT User may withdraw from this Agreement by sending the LOT Administrator a written announcement that declares the LOT User’s intent to withdraw and is signed and submitted by an authorized representative of the LOT User. The existence and date of each such announcement will be published on the LOT website. The LOT User’s withdrawal will be effective as to such LOT User and all of its Affiliates six (6) months after it sends the withdrawal announcement.
2.4. Scope of Rights Following Effective Date of Withdrawal.
(a) Inbound Licenses. The Licenses granted to a LOT User or its Affiliate that has or is deemed to have withdrawn will remain in effect only with respect to Subject Patents of Licensors that were Transferred to an Assertion Entity prior to the date on which such withdrawal is effective.
(b) Outbound Licenses. All Patents of a LOT User or its Affiliate that are Subject Patents as of the date on which withdrawal or deemed withdrawal is effective as to such Entity shall remain Subject Patents and will remain and continue to be licensed following withdrawal to all Licensees existing as of the date of withdrawal and to all Licensees that become an Affiliate of an existing Licensee after the date of withdrawal, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including Subject Patents Transferred to an Assertion Entity after the date on which withdrawal is effective.
2.5. Amendment. Provisions regarding amendment of this Agreement are set forth in Exhibit B, incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.
3. Warranties
3.1. Disclaimer. EACH LICENSOR OFFERS THE PATENT LICENSES GRANTED HEREIN “AS IS” AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING ITS PATENTS.
3.2. Representations and Warranties. Notwithstanding Section 3.1, each LOT User represents and warrants that:
(a) it is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of its jurisdiction of organization and that it has the full right and power to grant the licenses, waivers, immunities, covenants and releases set forth herein;
(b) this Agreement has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by such LOT User and is enforceable against such LOT User;
(c) it has and covenants that it will continue to have and exercise the rights necessary to cause its Affiliates to be bound by the obligations of this LOT Agreement (including the obligation to grant the Licenses with respect to the Subject Patents in accordance herewith); and
(d) it will not use or cooperate with any Financial Investors, Holding Companies, or non-Participating Business Groups for the primary purpose of circumventing its obligations under this Agreement.
4. Disclaimer of Liability
IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY LOT USER OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES BE LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, OR BY VIRTUE OF GRANTING ANY LICENSES HEREUNDER, FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, OR FOR ANY OTHER PUNITIVE OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, WHETHER UNDER A THEORY OF WARRANTY, CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF SUCH LOT USER OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES PRIOR TO SUCH AN OCCURRENCE.
5. Miscellaneous
5.1. Relationship of the Parties. This Agreement does not create any relationship of agency, partnership or joint venture among the LOT Users or their Affiliates.
5.2. No Impact on Reasonable Royalty or Equitable Relief. Each LOT User and its Affiliates agree that this Agreement does not reflect a royalty that any LOT User or its Affiliate might otherwise have negotiated with respect to any Subject Patents. Each LOT User and its Affiliates further agrees that this Agreement is not intended to, and they will not argue that this Agreement is, relevant to whether an injunction is available or what would constitute a reasonable royalty or a measure of damages for Infringement of any Subject Patents in any dispute outside the scope of this Agreement.
5.3. Third Party Beneficiaries. Each LOT User and each of its Affiliates is an intended third party beneficiary of this Agreement. Except as expressly provided herein, nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to give any Entity, other than LOT Users and their Affiliates, any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or in respect of this Agreement or any provision contained herein.
Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the LOT Users and their Affiliates with respect to the subject matter hereof.
5.5. Bankruptcy. Each LOT User acknowledges and agrees that from and after the Effective Date, and notwithstanding any limitations or conditions in Section 1 or 2 that may apply, (i) this Agreement is an executory contract as that term is used in Section 365 of the United States Bankruptcy Code; (ii) the License granted by each Licensor to each Licensee under this Agreement is subject to Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code; (iii) for the purposes of Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Subject Patents constitute “intellectual property” within the scope of Section 101 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (iv) in the event that any bankruptcy is filed by or against a Licensor, or the Licensor is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, and the trustee in such bankruptcy rejects this Agreement, each Licensee will have the right to exercise all rights provided by Section 365(n), including but not limited to the right to retain its license rights under this Agreement and any agreement supplementary to this Agreement.
5.6. Costs. LOT Users will pay fees for ongoing costs and operation of LOT Network Inc. and the LOT Administrator in accordance with Exhibit A.
5.7. General Release Waiver. With respect to the releases granted by it in this LOT Agreement, each Licensor voluntarily and with full knowledge of its significance, expressly waives and relinquishes any and all rights they may have under any state or federal statute, rule or common law principle, in law or equity, relating to limitations on releases. SPECIFICALLY, EACH PARTY HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVES ANY RIGHTS IT MAY HAVE UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542 WHICH PROVIDES THAT: “A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.”
5.8. Release for LOT Administrator and LOT Network Inc. Each LOT User releases the LOT Administrator, LOT Network Inc. and their directors, representatives and successors from, and covenants not to action with respect to, any liability associated with their administration of this Agreement.
5.9. Notice. All notices and communications pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the Entity giving such notice and shall be deemed to have been given upon receipt or upon tender by electronic mail with a follow-on hardcopy using a priority or express courier, postage prepaid to the noticed party as follows: (a) in the case of the undersigned LOT User, to the email and mailing addresses provided on the signature page hereto, which addresses may be updated by notice from such LOT User to the LOT Administrator; and (b) in the case of the LOT Administrator, to the email and mailing addresses for the LOT Administrator as of the date of notice as specified on the LOT website.
5.10. Section Headings. The Section headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not in any way control the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.
5.11. Governing Law. This Agreement will be interpreted, construed, and enforced in all respects in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without reference to its choice of law principles.
6. Definitions
6.1. “Affiliate” means, with respect to a first Entity, any Entity that directly or indirectly Controls, is Controlled by, or is under common Control with such first Entity, but only for so long as such Control exists; provided, however, that:
(a) in the event that a LOT User is or becomes Controlled by a Financial Investor, then such Financial Investor (and any Entities that (i) are Controlled by such Financial Investor, (ii) are not Affiliates of such LOT User other than because of their common Control by such Financial Investor, and (iii) do not exist for the primary purpose of attempting to avoid having Patents be subject to this Agreement) will not be considered Affiliates of such LOT User for so long as such Financial Investor remains a non-Assertion Entity; and
(b) in the event that a LOT User is or becomes Controlled by an Entity (“Holding Company”) that Controls a group of Entities that conduct substantially separate and identifiable businesses (each such Entity and its Controlled Affiliates, a “Business Group”), then such Holding Company (and any Entities that (i) are Controlled by such Holding Company, (ii) are not Affiliates of such LOT User other than because of their common Control by such Holding Company, and (iii) do not exist for the primary purpose of attempting to avoid having Patents be subject to this Agreement) will not be considered Affiliates of such LOT User for so long as such Holding Company remains a non-Assertion Entity, provided that one or more of the Business Groups that becomes a LOT User together with its Controlled Affiliates (“Participating Business Groups”) (x) owns or controls at least 10,000 active U.S. Subject Patents at the time of becoming a LOT User, and (y) has aggregate consolidated revenues, exclusive of revenue derived from Patent Assertions, measured over the full twelve (12) months preceding the date it becomes a LOT User of greater than $1 billion. Any such LOT User will confirm whether it is subject to this Section 6.1(b) upon written request from another LOT User.
6.2. “Assertion Entity” means an Entity and each one of its Affiliates if such Entity and all its Affiliates collectively derived from Patent Assertion more than half of their total consolidated gross revenue measured over the full twelve (12) months preceding a particular date (other than as a result, during such twelve (12) month period, of a damages award or settlement obtained in such period from patent infringement proceedings brought by such Entity or its Affiliates against one or more other Entities based on such other Entities’ sale or distribution of one or more infringing products or services that compete against one or more bona fide commercial products or services of such Entity or its Affiliates, provided that such Entity and all its Affiliates collectively did not derive (or were not awarded or did not otherwise obtain the right to derive pursuant to a settlement) from Patent Assertion an amount equaling more than half of their total consolidated gross revenue measured over the full twenty-four (24) months preceding the particular date). Without limiting the foregoing, the following will be counted as revenue derived by an Entity from Patent Assertion for purposes of this definition (i) royalties and other monetary compensation arising from grant of releases, licenses, covenants not to sue or other rights to Patent(s) for the primary purpose of deriving royalties or other monetary compensation under such Patent(s), where such rights are not granted in connection with Products and Services provided by such Entity or its Affiliates relating to such Patent(s) (which shall be counted as revenue at the time of receipt), (ii) monetary compensation arising from settlement of Patent Assertion (which shall be counted as revenue at the time of receipt), (iii) damages awarded arising from a Patent Assertion (which shall be counted as revenue at the time of award, even if not collected), and (iv) imputed revenue of $100,000 for each Infringement complaint filed for a Patent Assertion (which shall be counted as revenue at the time of filing). In addition, an Entity and each of its Affiliates will be deemed to be an Assertion Entity if the Entity or any of its Affiliate has, as of a particular date, a goal or plan approved by senior management or a senior executive (or under which the Entity has begun to receive revenue) to derive from Patent Assertion, either directly, or indirectly through one or more of its Affiliates, more than half of the total consolidated gross revenue of such Entity and its Affiliates collectively in any twelve (12) month period including or after that particular date.
6.3. “Change of Control” means, with respect to a first Entity:
(a) direct or indirect acquisition (except for transactions described in clause (b) below), whether in one or a series of transactions, by a second Entity or related Entities of Control of the first Entity; or
(b) a merger, consolidation or other reorganization or recapitalization of the first Entity with a second Entity or a direct or indirect subsidiary of such second Entity, provided that a result of the consummation of such merger, consolidation or other reorganization or recapitalization, whether in one or a series of related transactions, is that the holders of Control of the first Entity immediately prior to such consummation do not Control, immediately after the consummation, the Entity surviving such merger, consolidation or other reorganization or recapitalization, or its direct or indirect parent Entity. The “effective date” of a Change of Control is the date on which the relevant acquisition, merger, consolidation, reorganization or recapitalization (as applicable) occurs under applicable law.
6.4. “Control” means (i) the ownership, or the direct or indirect control, of more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting stock or other voting ownership interest of an Entity, or (ii) the sole power to elect, appoint, or cause the election or appointment of, directly or indirectly, at least a majority of the members of the board of directors (or such other governing body that exercises a similar level of control) of an Entity. The terms “Controlled” and “Controls” shall have a correlative meaning.
6.5. “Entity” means an individual, corporation, trust, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, association, unincorporated organization, or other legal or governmental entity.
6.6. “Financial Investor” means an Entity that is not an Assertion Entity and its primary business is investing in equity securities or debt of non-Assertion Entities (examples of a Financial Investor are a venture capital firm or a private equity firm).
6.7. “Infringement” means direct or indirect infringement of a Patent.
6.8. “License” means the license rights, releases, waivers and immunities granted in Sections 1 and 2 of this Agreement, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations herein.
6.9. “Licensee” means, with respect to each Subject Patent of a Licensor: (i) each LOT User who is within its Participation Period at any time that the respective Licensor or any assignee, transferee or successor has, or after which the Licensor or any assignee, transferee or successor later obtains, the right to grant licenses, releases, waivers or immunities with respect to such Subject Patent of or within the scope granted in the License; and (ii) each Affiliate of such LOT User that is or becomes an Affiliate of the LOT User at any time during such LOT User’s Participation Period, subject to Sections 2 as applicable.
6.10. “Licensor” means a LOT User and each Entity that is, was, or becomes, an Affiliate of such LOT User during the LOT User’s Participation Period. For avoidance of doubt, each LOT User and each of its Affiliates referenced in the prior sentence shall remain a Licensor with respect to its Subject Patents, even after submission of a withdrawal announcement as set forth in Section 2.3 or Limitation Announcement as set forth in Exhibit B.
6.11. “LOT Administrator” means LOT Network Inc. or other Entity appointed by LOT Network Inc. or its successor that administers the LOT website, including receiving and publishing on the LOT website the name of Entities that submit this Agreement, withdrawal announcements (as set forth in Section 2.3), Limitation Announcements (as set forth in Exhibit B), and the associated dates of such announcements. The Entity acting as the LOT Administrator may change from time to time as determined by the Board of LOT Network Inc. or its successor and such change will be announced on the LOT website.
6.12. “LOT User” means an Entity that agrees to this Agreement by means of submission to the LOT Administrator. Once an Entity becomes a LOT User, it remains a LOT User for purposes of this Agreement.
6.13. “Participation Period” means, with respect to a particular LOT User and each of its Affiliates, the period commencing on the date such LOT User signs this Agreement and transmits it to the LOT Administrator and ending on the effective date of withdrawal or deemed withdrawal of such LOT User or its respective Affiliate (as set forth in Section 2) or applicable Limitation Date (as set forth in Exhibit B). A LOT User or its Affiliate may have more than one Participation Period, if it withdraws or is deemed to have withdrawn from the Agreement or issues a Limitation Announcement and subsequently re-enters into this Agreement, provided that a withdrawing LOT User under Section 2.3 may not re-enter this Agreement for a period of at least six (6) months after its withdrawal or issuance of a Limitation Announcement.
6.14. “Patent” means any patent, utility model, inventor certificate, or equivalent right, including but not limited to a design patent or design registration, and any application for any of the foregoing anywhere in the world, including originals, continuations, continuations-in-part, divisionals, results of reexamination, renewals, extensions, and reissues, and claims contained in such patent, inventor certificate, utility model, or equivalent.
6.15. “Patent Assertion” means either of the following assertions of rights under a Patent against another Entity: (i) asserting (including but not limited to via a written or oral demand) a claim of Infringement of such Patent for the primary purpose of deriving royalties or other monetary compensation under such Patent, or (ii) the commencement or subsequent pursuit of a claim, action or proceeding in a judicial, administrative or other governmental body, including but not limited to a court (in any country) or the U.S. International Trade Commission, based in whole or in part on a claim of Infringement of such Patent.
6.16. “Products and Services” means, with respect to an Entity, any and all products (hardware and software), technologies, components, and services, including but not limited to any software that is used, licensed or otherwise distributed (including as open source software) by or for the respective Entity, and all authorized copies of same. For purposes of the License granted to each Licensee, Products and Services also include any activities of the Licensee that, in the absence of this Agreement, would constitute inducement to infringe or contributory infringement (or infringement under any other analogous legal doctrine in the applicable jurisdiction) of the Licensors’ respective Subject Patent.
6.17. “Subject Patents” means (i) all issued Patents and pending Patent applications owned or licensable (directly or indirectly) by a Licensor at any time during its Participation Period, and (ii) all Patents that at any time issue on or claim priority (directly or indirectly) to any such Patent under (i) above for which Licensor or any assignee, transferee or successor has or later obtains the right to license, whether during or after its Participation Period, provided that the grant of a License to an applicable Licensee does not require payment of royalties or other consideration by Licensor to third parties (except for payments among Entities that form part of Licensor or to third parties for inventions made by the third parties while employed by Licensor) unless someone other than Licensor (or its assignees, transferees or successors) agrees to pay such royalties or other consideration on behalf of the applicable Licensee. If a Licensor has any interest in a Patent or an Entity that owns or controls a Patent (including the right to withhold consent for Patent Assertion of such Patent) at any time during its Participation Period, but does not have the right to grant licenses, releases, waivers and immunities of the full scope set forth in this Agreement, then such Patent will be considered a Subject Patent only to the extent Licensor has the right to grant licenses, releases, waivers or immunities within the scope set forth in this Agreement. Licensor grants such licenses, releases, waivers and immunities to the maximum extent it has the right to do so without requiring payment of royalties or other consideration to third parties as set forth above, and agrees to withhold consent for Patent Assertion by any Assertion Entity against any Licensee or with respect to any Licensee’s Products and Services to the extent it has the right to do so. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Patent will not be considered a Subject Patent of a financial institution as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 20 solely by reason of being held by such financial institution (i) as trustee for a beneficiary that is not an Affiliate of such financial institution, or (ii) as a result of foreclosure or enforcement of a security interest in order to transfer the Patent to a third party that is not an Affiliate of such financial institution to satisfy an underlying financial obligation based on monies lent and secured by such Patent.
6.18. “Transfer” or “Transferred” to an Assertion Entity means any of the following with respect to a Subject Patent, whether during or after a Participation Period of the applicable Licensor: (i) the assignment, sale, exclusive license, or transfer, in whole or in part, of such Patent to an Assertion Entity, whether by Licensor or any subsequent transferee or exclusive licensee of the Subject Patent, or (ii) acquisition of ownership or control of the Subject Patent by an Assertion Entity (including any circumstance in which Licensor or any subsequent transferee owning or controlling the Subject Patent is or becomes an Assertion Entity or Controlled by an Assertion Entity or in which any Assertion Entity obtains any right to enforce or otherwise make Patent Assertions of the Subject Patent), with the earliest date any Entity owning or controlling such Patent is or becomes an Assertion Entity or Controlled by an Assertion Entity being deemed to be the effective date of such Transfer. For avoidance of doubt, any condition of a License based on Transfer of a Subject Patent to an Assertion Entity will be deemed satisfied at all times following the date of first Transfer of the Subject Patent to an Assertion Entity, even if the Subject Patent is subsequently transferred to a non-Assertion Entity.
A-1 Fee Schedule. The annual fee per LOT User is set forth in the following fee schedule, to be paid to LOT Network Inc. or its successor (“LOT Network”) as specified on the LOT website. An Entity that joins part way through LOT Network’s fiscal year will pay a pro-rata portion of the annual fee for that year. The pro-rata portion will be due at the time of signing.
Fee Schedule:
LOT User’s Annual Revenue LOT User’s Annual Fee
less than $5 million Free
between $5 million and $10 million Free
between $10 million and $25 million Free
between $25 million and $50 million $5,000
between $50 million and $100 million $10,000
between $100 million and $1 billion $15,000
greater than $1 billion $20,000
A-2 Updates. The Fee Schedule in Section A-1 of this Exhibit A may be updated from time to time by the Board of Directors of LOT Network in accordance with its Bylaws, and such updates shall not constitute an amendment of this Agreement. The current Fee Schedule will be posted on the LOT website by the LOT Administrator. LOT Network may waive or discount fees from time to time for particular LOT Users or for particular periods of time to attract new LOT Users or for other purposes approved by the Board of Directors of LOT Network in accordance with its Bylaws.
A-3 Failure to Pay Fees. If a LOT User fails to pay the annual membership fee due under this Exhibit A within ninety (90) days of receipt of an invoice, such delinquent LOT User and its Affiliates shall not receive the benefit of any Licenses to any Subject Patents assigned or otherwise transferred by any Licensor to any Entity that is not a LOT User or an Affiliate of a LOT User during a period of delinquency that extends from the date ninetyone (91) days after receipt of such invoice until such delinquency is cured.
B-1 Procedure. An amendment may be put to a vote under this Exhibit B only upon approval in writing of the Board of Directors of LOT Network Inc. or its successor (“Board”) in accordance with its Bylaws. The Board will determine the amendment submission procedure and the voting procedure and may publish further details on the LOT website. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, the following voting procedure will apply. Following approval of putting an amendment up for vote by the Board as set forth above, the then-current LOT Users qualified to vote will be notified of a proposed amendment via email with no follow-on hardcopy (notwithstanding Section 5.9). Such LOT Users will have 30 calendar days to vote by responding by email to the LOT Administrator at the following email address: admin@lotnet.com. If a LOT User fails to vote within the time period designated, the LOT User’s vote will not be counted. If a LOT User joins while an amendment is pending, that LOT User will be permitted to vote on the amendment that is currently pending but the time period to vote will not be extended for such LOT User.
B-2 Approval. Amendment of this Agreement requires vote in favor of the amendment by at least eighty percent (80%) of all LOT Users who timely vote and who, at the time of the vote, are within their Participation Period, have not submitted a Limitation Announcement or announcement of the LOT User’s intent to withdraw, have paid any fees due under Exhibit A, and own at least one active, issued US patent in the USPTO assignment database that is a Subject Patent. The terms of an amendment shall take effect upon the date of such approval (the “Amendment Effective Date”) which will be published on the LOT website. Notice of such approval will also be given to all LOT Users via email with no follow-on hardcopy (notwithstanding Section 5.9). Upon taking effect, such amended terms shall apply with respect to and amend this Agreement regarding any LOT User and its Affiliates who, by the end of the Publication Period, have not issued a Limitation Announcement as specified below in Sections B-3 of this Exhibit B.
B-3 Dissenting LOT User May Submit a Limitation Announcement. The terms of the amendment shall be published on the LOT website for a period of sixty (60) days after it is approved (the “Publication Period”). Any LOT User that voted against the adoption of such amendment (a “Dissenting LOT User”) may submit a written announcement signed and submitted by an authorized representative of the Dissenting LOT User to the LOT website before the end of the applicable Publication Period declaring the Dissenting LOT User’s intent to limit the scope of its participation under this Agreement to the terms in effect immediately prior to the Amendment Effective Date and to the Patents of itself and its Affiliates that are Subject Patents hereunder immediately prior to the Amendment Effective Date (“Limitation Announcement”). Any such amended terms shall not apply with respect to any LOT User and its Affiliates who, on or before the end of the applicable Publication Period, have issued a Limitation Announcement. The existence of each Limitation Announcement and the date of its submission will be published on the LOT website.
B-5 Scope of Rights Upon Limitation. The Licenses granted to and by a Dissenting LOT User and its Affiliates will be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement in effect immediately prior to the applicable Amendment Effective Date (“Limitation Date”). The Licenses granted to a Dissenting LOT User and its Affiliates will remain in effect after the applicable Limitation Date only with respect to Patents that are Subject Patents of Licensors as of the Limitation Date, including those Transferred to an Assertion Entity after the Limitation Date. All Licenses granted to Licensees with respect to Subject Patents of the Dissenting LOT User and its Affiliates as of the applicable Limitation Date will remain in full force and effect and continue to apply to each Licensee (including those Entities that become an Affiliate of a LOT User after the applicable Limitation Date), including with respect to Subject Patents Transferred to an Assertion Entity after the Limitation Date. For avoidance of doubt, all Patents of a Dissenting LOT User or its Affiliates that are Subject Patents as of its Limitation Date shall remain Subject Patents subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement after such Limitation Date.
LOT is not a “techie” thing but a lawyer thing. “LOT Users will pay fees for ongoing costs and operation of LOT Network Inc. and the LOT Administrator in accordance with Exhibit A,” it says. So they’re in effect paying one person’s massive salary. What do they get in return? Pretty much nothing. Maybe their logo on a page. Only if they’re a big company that pays high membership fees anyway…
“Microsoft certainly gets its money’s worth from LOT; who would be foolish to participate in this?”They later uses these pages for marketing and PR purposes.
Funnily enough LOT promotes itself by citing articles about itself in Microsoft tabloids like ZDNet, which were happy to promote LOT and Microsoft, making false claims about patent peace just months before another Microsoft lawsuit. Microsoft certainly gets its money’s worth from LOT; who would be foolish to participate in this? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.25.20
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 9:00 pm by Guest Editorial Team
Guest article by figosdev
Summary: “Walking away from monopolies is the essence of freedom”
This week I wrote about one of the greatest threats to software freedom, but I wasn’t sure exactly where to rank it. So now I’ll say that I think the three greatest threats to software today, are censorship, Github and uppity developers.
When I think about the problem of uppity developers, I’m not talking about their people skills. There’s a myth that every developer needs to work with other people; quite a lot of software started out with one person writing it, and I don’t think it’s necessarily their problem, or their responsibility, to do anything after they put that software out into the world.
If the software is free, then someone else can pick it up and create a community around it, if it even needs one. It’s a nice feature when a developer goes beyond the task of writing software, but it isn’t the requirement that open source has always made it out to be.
“I don’t care that Linus Torvalds is sometimes rude — I still think censorship is a bigger problem than rudeness.”But that goes both ways, and it isn’t the responsibility of a user to do what the developer wants either. Cooperation, by definition, is mutual. If it isn’t, it’s simply obedience — and people who want freedom should be practicing Software Disobedience — because Freedom 0 doesn’t change just because an uppity developer doesn’t understand it.
I don’t care that Linus Torvalds is sometimes rude — I still think censorship is a bigger problem than rudeness. Torvalds has changed a fair bit on the surface, most likely due to pressure from his owners, but none of the things that bother me about him have changed. Torvalds isn’t an example of what I call “uppity developers,” because the obedience he expects is rhetorical, and nothing to do with the software. Sure, he is uppity about criticism of Microsoft. That’s a separate complaint from the one I’m trying to make here.
Uppity developers act like Freedom 0 doesn’t exist — the freedom to use the software for any purpose. They criticise people for trying to make their software optional, and they frequently boast (or dishonestly insist — then deny ever insisting) that users will have “no choice” (or very little choice) about running their software. I’m not against people claiming success and showing the other people that use their software in a production setting or any other setting, but when that software is something people are being told to “get with with program” (literally? Obey the software and obey the developer?) they’re missing out one of the great things about software freedom — at least when software freedom is working.
I’ve had developers and fanboys tell me I’ll have “no choice” but to run GNOME, many years before they lied (then denied) that you would need systemd to run GNOME for example. Whether it’s true or some kind of sick joke, that kind of attitude — of mocking and laughing at users about developer lock-in is much farther from a healthy attitude than some of Torvalds’ most passionate rants about contributions to the kernel.
“Uppity developers act like Freedom 0 doesn’t exist — the freedom to use the software for any purpose.”Here’s another reason to use Torvalds as an example — I have no problem with a lead developer trying to stop people that contribute code from breaking the project. If that wasn’t a good thing, I’m not sure if projects would even need a lead developer. Rather this attitude that these expectations extend to the user — user freedom is as important as any, because all software developers are also software users. As long as it’s possible to sabotage a project, it would be silly indeed to take issue with a lead developer protecting a project from sabotage or breakage.
I’m aware of the fact that many projects are making their work harder to fork and adapt, and I don’t consider that beneficial. There is no perfect software, and so there is no perfectly-forkable software; but while there can be no mandate to perfect anything, I think it is a real problem that so much software is going backwards in this regard; that lock-in is increasing, and many people know it. As I’ve said, it’s not a new problem — the scale of the problem, however, is something I put squarely within the past 5 years.
This is also why I think we need a Fifth Freedom — the freedom to not run the software. We should build that into as much so-called “Free as in Freedom” software as possible, because the freedom to NOT run the software was always implicit and present by chance. Now that it is being deliberately eroded, that lock-in is being contributed as an ever-increasing problem, we can’t rely on implicit and incidental modularity like we generally had until now. It has to become a deliberate feature — within reason, of course. And not only for developers, but for users — because they enjoyed it too. Don’t like something? Just remove or replace it. That used to be so much easier (and less superficially true than it is today.)
“And not only for developers, but for users — because they enjoyed it too. Don’t like something? Just remove or replace it. That used to be so much easier (and less superficially true than it is today.)”But until these uppity developers become more fair and modest, it is also important to promote the kind of software that doesn’t showcase that sort of arrogance. And Github is still one of the largest threats to software freedom today; so while we promote the idea of an operating system that Microsoft doesn’t control (seriously, we have to do that again?) it’s important to practice software disobedience with Github-based projects as well. I am aware that it’s probably impossible (or at least very unlikely) to go all the way with this. It’s a gradually worsening problem with a solution that can probably also only work gradually.
So software obedience is about:
1. Ignoring that Freedom 0 exists
2. Letting developers control you by having too much control of your software
3. Abandoning and removing modularity to create further lock-in
4. Letting monopolies control Free software development
And software Disobedience is about:
1. Strengthening Freedom 0, along with the other software freedoms
2. Resisting the messaging and machinations of uppity developers who want to control your computing
3. Abandoning, replacing or when possible, forking software that adds to lock-in (as the LibreOffice developers did when OpenOffice became “less free”)
4. Abandoning, replacing or when possible, forking software that is controlled by monopoly forces such as Github
“For many years, I have looked for ways to promote and bolster software freedom.”And “ps aux” says I’ve been running Fluxbox for less than one hour; I already miss using IceWM, which I’ve promoted for years. But until somebody commits to a serious fork of this window manager, I feel strongly that it’s time to try to find alternatives. For many years, I have looked for ways to promote and bolster software freedom. Continuing to use IceWM when I could promote walking away from it is no longer worth it in my opinion. Software disobedience matters to me, and I don’t truly need a window manager that props up the Microsoft Github monopoly.
I know there are bigger problems than what window manager I use; but even before I finished migrating to the GNU operating system, I had learned more and more about Free software by walking away from one non-free program towards one that was more free. It’s time to do that again. So even if I can’t have a Microsoft-free, Github-free operating system that doesn’t prop up their monopolistic abuse, I still would rather move in that direction.
It’s also important, I believe, to have smaller components working first. When it’s possible to replace a larger solution — like GNOME 3 with Mate, if you never liked the attitude of GNOME 3 developers (or found them even worse than when you used GNOME 2 — as I sometimes did) The thing is that smaller projects are easier to fork, easier to maintain, and easier for an everyday hacker/coder (Jane or Joe Coder) to fix if they need to. I think security patches are an important part of the ecosystem, though it’s still harder to patch something enormous and keep bugs out in the first place.
So while I’m not strictly against larger software suites, I certainly consider smaller applications like Fluxbox and Wget a higher priority than larger applications. If the utilities we rely on to work when nothing else does are not taken care of, then we lose the foundation for our operating system — and the things we can fix and re-liberate most easily.
“But since Windows XP came out, getting away from Microsoft was a priority. And they haven’t gotten any better as a company, they are far worse than ever.”On that note, someone is trying to convince Fluxbox developers to move development to Github. Simply based on commits, I think it’s very possible we will lose Fluxbox to Github in the next year or two. I’m trying out window managers like Fluxbox (the most obvious move from IceWM, as JWM is also Github-based) even though I’ve never really been a huge Fluxbox fan. It’s always been less trouble to get IceWM quickly working how I like, with a better default configuration (just my opinion; either way, I’m recommending Fluxbox to people right now — just with these caveats.) But I also think I could stand trying dwm again.
Suckless.org has a good philosophy, I think Steve Litt loves and promotes dwm (I haven’t checked on this in a while) and when I used it, it wasn’t awful. I like having something a little more conventional as an option — I promoted GNOME 2 for people that might want enough hand-holding that XFCE wasn’t quite up to their expectations, even while I preferred XFCE myself.
As compromises between friendliness and resource usage go, LXDE was the thing I promoted the most, and XFCE and GNOME 2 were “steps up” in terms of features but steps down in terms of being lightweight. For myself and anybody who wanted basic, familiar features with incredibly light resource use and best speed on old computers, I promoted IceWM (even on machines with several cores. Why waste CPU, RAM and GPU on moving rectangles around?)
“I switched to GNU in the first place, because for years now I’ve tried to be someone who can recommend the best tools for doing real tasks — without compromising on freedom.”But since Windows XP came out, getting away from Microsoft was a priority. And they haven’t gotten any better as a company, they are far worse than ever. Walking away from monopolies is the essence of freedom, and while I’m not kidding about being sad to walk away from IceWM, the fact remains that Microsoft controls it now. I’m willing to explore the alternatives, as I was when I switched to GNU in the first place, because for years now I’ve tried to be someone who can recommend the best tools for doing real tasks — without compromising on freedom.
But we have grown a little too obedient in my opinion, a little too complacent with being told what to do, and while I talk about the importance of the philosophy as well as the significance of corporate corruption — it’s also important to act. I learned how to automate live distro remastering, so I could redistribute a script instead of a distro as a way of cleaning up cruft and attempted lock-in, but until today I was still using IceWM on one of my primary workstations. Sometimes we need to decide that now’s the time to take another step. As I explore options, they’ll fan out to what setups I use less often.
“Walking away from monopolies is the essence of freedom, and while I’m not kidding about being sad to walk away from IceWM, the fact remains that Microsoft controls it now.”And no, I will not continue using Fluxbox if Github takes it over. I won’t even continue using it if I find a Github-free, free software alternative I like more. But it gets another chance right now, because it seems farther away from Github than my ideal window manager. That’s a status I’m watching closely — and I know the community will let me know sooner or later if it’s already too late for Fluxbox. Unless I notice it first. █
Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (public domain)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft, OSI at 4:27 am by Guest Editorial Team
Article by figosdev
Summary: “Everybody wants this to be treated like a small picture and minor details when it’s actually very similar across the board, and the latter is something even Stallman needs to wake up to (if he hasn’t already.)”
IF I write an autobiography, some people will say that it’s all about me. When I’ve read biographies, it’s usually about lots more than the person on the cover. Reading a biography, you can learn about relationships, ideas, philosophy, events — biography is a window into history, and history is a window to the world around us. History often tells us something about the future.
“History often tells us something about the future.”If people read about my life, I want them to share in the lessons and experiences I’ve encountered. But it is simply easier (and more personal) to do this in the first person. Some people find that loathsome — they could probably train a machine-learning algorithm to reword everything in the 3rd person if they want to. But autobiographies are awkward in the 3rd person, as is pretending that my experiences have nothing to do with me.
I am the person that ties my experiences together — just as you are the person that is among many things, a collection of your experiences. People are thus not only books, but they are volumes in the story of humankind. Each person is a window into the human experience, and society is increasingly obsessed with shuttering those windows. I find that very interesting, and I spend a good deal of time thinking about it and exploring ideas around it. I love to code, I’ve managed to find various ways of still enjoying it decades later — but sometimes I can’t sit down to code because there are other things I feel the need to write.
“A more likely scenario, from personal experience and from the experiences of other people that this story is about, is that people will quote things out of context and try to do exactly the sort of thing that this story warns against.”In the early days of the Web, the solution to that was simple — if you wanted to write, you would write. For a glimpse into those days, I recommend “Code” by Lawrence Lessig, one of my favourite people on Earth. Of course there are many quick bios on textfiles.com as well, though for this purpose more people might find Lessig’s writings easier to relate to.
I grew up as an Atheist in the Bible Belt. I fell in love with science, and while that relationship has grown more complex and nuanced, I don’t think I’ve ever walked away. My dreams were to become a scientist (turns out, it’s got more math than I could ever fall in love with — but I was 4 at the time) and then an engineer (nope, still loads of math there).
If you want to know the pinnacle of my math abilities, anybody who made it through 4 years of college will find it sad. You can iterate through a range of numbers from -pi to pi (I use 3.14159, it’s easy to remember and works acceptably up to a certain resolution) and the cosine of your set times the radius will let you plot the x coordinates of a circle, while the sine of that set times the radius will give you the y coordinates. You can do wonderful and amazing things with circles. You can use this to plot other equilateral polygons, with 3 vertices to a thousand. You can plot spheres.
I’ve never used (or written) a shading algorithm. There are 12-year-olds who can outcode my fun geometric designs. But I’m okay with that. For 5 minutes, I might have known how to solve a quadratic equation. Plenty of highschoolers know more about math than I do. I did make it to college at least. I left shortly after that, and have no college debts.
“People who hate corporations always talk about greed, cults, sociopaths, dictators, destruction, slavemasters, as well as cattle and sheep.”I’m agnostic now, and sometimes even theist. But I don’t believe in religion per se, because I think the lines between religions are misleading. I learned in primary school that the continents were once part of a landmass called Pangaea. It wasn’t for many years though, that I realised how the present shapes of the continents actually fit together like a puzzle. I feel the same way about religion — and philosophy.
Of course you want to talk about experience with religion if you’re going to delve into cults. Here’s a fun fact that I’ll remain vague about — do you know there was an organisation designed to help people recover from cults, which was systematically infiltrated and taken over by one of the more famous cults known about today? They obtained the personal information of everyone that had joined the anti-cult organisation, and the name of that organisation is Github–
I’m only kidding about the name, but the rest of the paragraph is factual. Fortunately I don’t need to name the organisation and draw harassment from the cult in question, because Wikipedia is a thing. But I do really think of Github when I think of that takeover.
There are lots of points to tie together here, and lots of impatient people who will complain that I’m taking too long to get to them. I hope they stop reading on this line, and go learn how to skim text and assess what they’ve read with integrity. Skimming is okay — bullshit a bit less okay. I’ve dealt with plenty of complaints in that regard, but this is my story, nonetheless — you’re free to tell your own.
What I lack in brevity, I’ll make up for in my own way. But remember that you don’t have to read this. This is a journey, not a tweet designed to whisk you teleport-like to a single point. A best scenario would be for someone to take something useful away from it, and retell it in their own voice and style of prose. But you are also free to take the entire thing.
“Not everyone who uses religious cults as a metaphor has actually joined one, or left one — they may not realise when they make the comparison how right they are.”A more likely scenario, from personal experience and from the experiences of other people that this story is about, is that people will quote things out of context and try to do exactly the sort of thing that this story warns against. But that sort of response is pretty obvious and commonplace these days. One of the reasons I’m taking you on the scenic route, is to let some people know how familiar an experience that really is.
I know a lot of people play fast and loose with metaphors, and they’re easy to find fault with. People who hate corporations always talk about greed, cults, sociopaths, dictators, destruction, slavemasters, as well as cattle and sheep. We are encouraged to treat these as tired cliches, and I don’t deny that sometimes this imagery is overused, in a way.
To a certain point, I’ll defend those critics, simply because they happen to be right. Not everyone who uses religious cults as a metaphor has actually joined one, or left one — they may not realise when they make the comparison how right they are. They may only assume. What’s funny is how little that changes just how apt the comparison is.
I did actually join a cult. I was cancelled from it — the old-fashioned way. I can tell you a bit about it. My first experience in an actual cult, my first experience with shunning in that cult, was not for being an asshole, but for being open-minded. I’ve seen this happen many times since then in the Free software world, but there are plenty of people to tell that story if you just listen.
My learning didn’t stop with my personal experience. Being interested, I’ve spent countless hours reading about cult tactics and corporate tactics, I joined and identified with “open source” before I left that for the Free software movement — I’ve watched open source proponents project their own behaviour onto Free software (Microsoft literally calls their salespeople “evangelists,” for crying out loud) and I can tell you that Free software isn’t a cult. But that could change, if it loses any further ground to open source.
I thought of several titles for this very long article, which I’ve encouraged Roy to split into a series. One of the titles was a warning about the danger of Free software becoming a cult if open source wins. We keep inching closer to that reality.
“My learning didn’t stop with my personal experience. Being interested, I’ve spent countless hours reading about cult tactics and corporate tactics, I joined and identified with “open source” before I left that for the Free software movement — I’ve watched open source proponents project their own behaviour onto Free software (Microsoft literally calls their salespeople “evangelists,” for crying out loud) and I can tell you that Free software isn’t a cult.”I won’t present you with a formal definition of a cult, for one because there are several definitions and criteria that will vie for your approval. I will tell you, in a roundabout way — how I arrive at the label of “cult” — a cult relies heavily on cult tactics. This is an important distinction, because it is far easier to talk about what cult tactics are than what cults are.
Once you have an organisation with hundreds of thousands of people in it, or even more, it gets more challenging to separate religions from cults. A handful of people from your church may try to interfere with your family or attack you in some way. How those individuals behave may actually be more cult-like than the larger organisation itself. And I’m happy to let other people worry about sorting out those details.
I’m actually okay with religion. I don’t equate religious beliefs with cult tactics, but I am aware of the fact that they are common bedfellows. That much certainly is a problem. The thing is, not everybody with a belief system supports those tactics — or belongs to an organisation that uses them.
So let’s start with the most likely reason someone will get drawn into a cult, because from the beginning, this is where the similarities begin. Who gets sucked into these things?
My teen years were difficult. I was living in a great deal of isolation, only a fraction of which was self-imposed. I had no family to speak of, but I did live with a complete tyrant. What’s really, really nice about this monster is that he’s dead. I mean this is someone who systematically led me through my entire childhood at metaphorical and emotional gunpoint, and wouldn’t you know? One day he just got cancer and started dying.
I talked to him on the phone a couple times, and it was like trying to have a conversation about universal healthcare with Donald Trump — a conversation with a narcissist and a sociopath. A person who is void of compassion and understanding. And I know that cancer is a terrible thing that takes lots of wonderful people from us. God forbid, it could take you or me or someone we love. But in this single instance if none other, it really did the world a favour.
“I’d spent my life rejecting religion, so without anything better to do, I made lots of inquiries.”Somewhere, rotting in the ground is the body of half a human — someone who I gave hundreds and hundreds of chances to — someone who used to violently kick in the door when we were kids, yanking me off the ground and into the air, regularly behaving in a way that would literally give some people a heart attack. Over what? We tried, you know — we tried our damnedest. But we weren’t perfect, and he knew it, and so we were tortured for year after year until we got it right.
The first cult I experienced was living at home, with God and the Devil. It was God that demanded we live without any fault or sin — the details of the law to be announced upon sentencing. It was the Devil that we knew could show himself at any time, to drag us into Hell for our sins. Of course this was all the same person — everything was about this person, literally nothing else mattered or was supposed to matter.
Of course I was Atheist. I knew God and the Devil were both full of shit, because I lived with them. It was a joy that he traveled so often, because even with our scars we sometimes had peace.
When I was a teenager, living alone with this tribute to absolute tyranny, some nice people came by. At first they didn’t have anything special to offer, but if I found a way to believe in their fantasies, they offered a caring, surrogate family — themselves.
I’d spent my life rejecting religion, so without anything better to do, I made lots of inquiries. I wanted to make certain they had nothing vehemently against science. They made their justifications and exceptions along the way, but it turned out that as long as I believed their overarching narrative, I could cling to practically any science I wanted. Evolution? Not a problem! After all, Darwin had a theistic bent himself. Evolution was the scientific perspective on how God created everything.
“Evolution was the scientific perspective on how God created everything.”As time would prove, my real salvation was that I had grown up among gay men. Unlike these new people, gays never tried to convert me. Not even once! Obviously a lot of it is that I was a kid, but even as an adult practically nobody has tried to get me to stray from any sort of heterosexuality that I may have — almost to the point where it’s a little insulting. But growing up around gay men was thoroughly unthreatening and sometimes fun, and the open-mindedness about homosexuality doomed my most highly-religious phase from the beginning (my heartfelt thanks to the most fabulous people that I knew back then.)
Of course I’d made inquiries about that as well. During our introductions, I was assured that I did not have to hate gay people to be part of this new surrogate family. Even if I was gay (I wasn’t), God would totally forgive me and still love me. Okay, sure, I guess.
It turns out (so to speak) that I really didn’t have to hate gay people, which is nice, but I did have to be uncomfortable with them. And I wasn’t. And I didn’t understand why anybody would need to be. And the moment I failed to understand that, was the first time someone slid in their seat away from me. C’mon, that’s very funny — what? Guys?
(Hello?)
I mean that could be an isolated incident, a stupid joke from another teenager. I wasn’t going to judge my entire religion on that. After all, the primary goal of these people was to become forgiving, understanding — and love and care about each other. Oh, yes! I’ve heard that one before!
Eventually the veneer of bullshit wore away, the truth began to shine through, and it became clear that yes — being open-minded really is a problem for a cult. The only way to be forgiven is to not screw up in the first place, the brand for life is as often as subtle as it is explicit, and people will swear to you that you’ll be forgiven if you just learn to do things their way.
Give up your identity, your personality, your philosophy, your personal morals — and these people will love you — just like they promised all along.
Spend your life pleasing them, and they will control you until you’re the best person they can make you into. I’d heard that one before as well…
“Spend your life pleasing them, and they will control you until you’re the best person they can make you into.”I spent years being very gently shunned everywhere I went — it continued when I moved to other cities, other states, when I moved other regions, where my religion didn’t change and the the so-called love they gave didn’t improve. The pattern was universal. The “brand” on my head was me — who I am as a person; not a complete lack of conformity, but still my lack of complete conformity. They weren’t looking up my name in a database, they were simply judging me as “this one is obviously different” everywhere I went. That behaviour was already ingrained and enforced in this “family.” They were doing the “right thing” by enforcing their expectations.
I went directly from being violently abused to being systematically shunned, but I was lucky in one regard — they had made plenty of promises to be my family, they had said the words, but they never did follow through.
I wasn’t trying to pretend to be anything, so I really never made it past the hurdles to where I had a real family. Instead of stealing my surrogate family from me, they only stole years of my time, a fair bit of missed opportunities for happiness, and a fantasy based on false promises. (Yes, that’s all.) There was one other thing, of course.
When you spend years being conditioned into a belief system, it does make it harder to leave. Even after you’ve left, you can be nagged (by your own thoughts) for years into thinking maybe you made the wrong choice. It’s silly and on an intellectual, scientific level — you already know better! But the back of your brain takes priority on these matters, and it takes years — decades, to tell that part of your brain “All is well, all is well — it’s okay, it’s okay.”
Cults exploit fear and loneliness, and they enslave people who have no family (or not much family).
“Aha!” the backstabber exclaims! “So that’s why you’re such an asshole — you’ve never had a nurturing relationship! Raised by sociopaths, you have no empathy!”
Oh, boy… Where to start?
“Cults exploit fear and loneliness, and they enslave people who have no family (or not much family).”As a philosopher, I’ve spent my entire life thinking about humanity and how to improve life on Earth. As someone who would have died (several times now) without fighting depression and crippling PTSD, and as someone with a deep love of science and truth, I’ve tried my utmost to understand humanity and its foibles. And yes — as someone who spent their youth being systematically tortured and terrorised for being imperfect, I’ve met few people who know more about the words “anger management.”
I know that Steve Ballmer knows what anger is like, because he throws chairs at Google. I know that Steve Jobs knew what anger is like, because of the way he treated people at Apple. And I know what autistic tantrums look like as well — when they’re similar, and when they’re different. And I would much rather be surrounded by panicked autists than narcissists and sociopaths. Autists aren’t sociopaths, and psychologists worth their salt already know this and have written the papers that provide evidence.
People who don’t know the difference between sociopathic, narcissistic rage, an autistic meltdown which is the physio-emotional equivalent of having a seizure, and simply yelling at a crowd full of bullies don’t know shit about anger. PTSD is also in there somewhere, but to my informal experience, it seems more complicated.
After being raised by a violent and terrifying overt narcissist, and a covert narcissist who relied on years of lying, projection and dragging me into one dangerous and damaging relationship after another, what do I know about healing?
For one, you need role models. You need inspiration from upstanding people. I don’t know anybody who was ever more greatly blessed than I was in this regard.
“Martin Luther King though — anti-war, awesome. Anti-racism. Anti-prejudice. But all built on true love — patience, understanding, and yes — anger about injustice.”Early on, I had the geniuses, Einstein, Edison; I thought highly of Thomas Edison, read books about him, turns out he was kind of an asshole — basically the Steve Jobs of his day. Take half-baked gizmos, make them marketable, claim to have invented them. I’m not saying he was useless, but like so many of today’s “luminaries” in technology, they got where they are by exploiting legitimate geniuses — like Tesla, who I knew nothing about except some big coil of wire, until I was in high school.
Also Tesla was a bigot and supposedly hated Einstein, but I’m not mad at him. I don’t think Tesla was an asshole. He was a bit weird though, and certainly wrong about some things.
I’ve actually always admired Martin Luther King. I’m mostly over Gandhi, but he has his moments. I like his style, at least. Martin Luther King though — anti-war, awesome. Anti-racism. Anti-prejudice. But all built on true love — patience, understanding, and yes — anger about injustice.
It really is okay to use your anger against true injustice. But it isn’t free — you can be angry without any right, and lots of people are — but to earn the right to be angry and use your anger, you absolutely must devote yourself to introspection, a fierce and endless quest for the whole truth, and a broad and fair perspective. This is a lifelong effort, and nobody in the world is so enlightened that they can shirk this. Many claim to be!
But Martin Luther King proclaimed things loudly, he shook his fist, he decried the true slavery that is War For Profit. And he told people — and this is the best part — to judge people “by the content of [their] character.”
Not by skin, not by words, not by religious membership, not by wealth, not by their dress, not by political party — but by character. Are you righteous enough to judge someone’s true character without being superficial? Only by devoting your life to getting past the superficial crap about a person can you even begin to try. Of course if you care about justice — and King most certainly did — then such an effort is not easy to avoid.
“Are you righteous enough to judge someone’s true character without being superficial?”We judge. We categorise. We protest. And if King was a good example, then we probably ought to do so. But King was a religious preacher, as well as a political activist. Growing up atheist, I only cared about (and deeply admired) his politics. His religion wasn’t important to me at all — only his character. Still when he preached, it was with a love of mankind, and a firm religious background to judge not superficially, but fairly and mercifully. His mercy was towards humanity, and individuals. But he didn’t suffer liars and warmongers and corporate thuggery — he fought those with his life.
I’m just as inspired by George Carlin as Martin Luther King. I’m still inspired by Einstein: “Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds.”
That’s pretty self-explanatory, but let’s just make this perfectly clear: he’s saying that even if you’re a great person — because you’re a great person — you’re likely to be attacked for it. This is not presented as an anecdote, but a universal and (“always”) unchanging truth about humanity. That sucks!
So being attacked proves — absolutely nothing. But there is a survival bias at work — it’s one of our cognitive foibles as a society proven in various psychological experiments, that if you encounter someone who is being attacked, there’s a good chance you probably deserve it. Uh-oh. That makes it a hell of a lot harder to fight for people that need our help and probably deserve our help. It’s a cognitive foible that lends itself to authoritarianism, sadly.
I’ve really never paid attention to the rest of the quote before, but it’s actually a gem:
“The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”
I’ve pretty much always thought it was more courageous for a single person to stand up to a vicious mob than the other way around, but perhaps I’m sentimental.
“In their own lifetimes, and sometimes for a while thereafter, we are encouraged to give our tyrants more credit than is due.”There’s a theme here that just won’t go away. And it lies at the root of authoritarianism, at the root of empire, the root of monopoly, the root of narcissism — the-cult like enslavement of too many of humanity’s individuals. You have to understand that some people — George Carlin included — are going to devote their entire lives to standing up to such nonsense.
Carlin isn’t alone. John Cleese, Dave Chappelle, Russell Peters, Stephen Fry — all have stood against the madness. All have my admiration and respect — and laughter. The joke of the narcissist, at the expense of whomever and for whatever reason, cannot compete with the pure irony torn asunder and exposed as bullshit by the genius of frank and honest comedy. Real artists suffer for their art, comedians for their jokes, and narcissists for their cramped and stunted psyche that never grows, never learns and never strives for true betterness — only status and the trappings of success, but not personal growth.
I love comedy, and I love the stories of imperfect people who struggled to do things not for fame but for a legacy of honest goodness — Saint Nicholas, Oskar Schindler, Akiva ben Yosef, and as mentioned — Martin Luther King, Jr. These were all people who bowed to something greater than mere authority — but to the greatest sort of authority: that which does more to encourage personal greatness by example and by deed, than by all the words and notions and false promises in the world. Those who follow the authority of the magnification of the human spirit.
Survival bias, again — encourage people to look upon the giving, the generous but undemanding, the gentle, and above all, the honest — as suckers, amateurs, as naive — as overly idealistic. But if you compare the legacies of true sages with those of most megalomaniacs, history usually reveals the foolishness of the latter. In their own lifetimes, and sometimes for a while thereafter, we are encouraged to give our tyrants more credit than is due. When we entrust history to librarians and unfettered research, not to small groups acting on self-serving agendas, we learn more about tyrants and their failures than we would otherwise be allowed.
“It’s actually very telling that the cliche about lonely reformers is in fact a cliche — because it represents the wishful thinking of controlling and abusive people.”But you’ll see the theme of the lonely, miserable giver — the sucker, the martyr, the simple fool. If they only had the good sense to look out for themselves, they would be happy. They would have nothing to whinge about!
Not all reformers are lonely. Many have known love, and among the fight for freedom have experienced being understood — being held, cherished, caressed, needed in someone’s life. All without needing to hold their loved ones captive in a system of control, fear and manipulation. But there is a stereotype you are warned against — do not be loud, or people will know that you’re bitter and miserable. Do not be rude, or people will know you have no morals and lack empathy. Don’t learn the difference — just let us sort it all out for you!
It’s actually very telling that the cliche about lonely reformers is in fact a cliche — because it represents the wishful thinking of controlling and abusive people. To a narcissist, every person that doesn’t kowtow deserves to be lonely, and the way this is enforced in an abusive, narcissistic relationship is by something called “poisoning the well.” Some cults do it, really bad aunties do it, and controlling abusers will go around and tell lies about you to make you sorry and further isolated so they can abuse you further. And while I think cancel culture is probably different than this in some ways, sometimes — the two have a lot in common.
Have these conventional prejudices, and do not choose instead to express your opinions courageously and honestly. Be afraid of your anger, and let us control you. You will flourish only when we say you have flourished, and only when we decide we are pleased with your growth as a person — and other stuff that great people never said.
There are too many similarities between narcissistic abuse and cult tactics and the behaviour of corporate monopolies to mention — but you have conversations with top salesmen where they tell you to do favours so people “owe you” — to make people feel loved so that they “owe you”. And when they are always owed, they’re really talking about ownership. They’re talking about owning people, they’re talking about emotional and practical slavery.
“There are too many similarities between narcissistic abuse and cult tactics and the behaviour of corporate monopolies to mention — but you have conversations with top salesmen where they tell you to do favours so people “owe you” — to make people feel loved so that they “owe you”.”Ponzi schemes do this as well — you move higher up by getting people under you, doing the same thing you were doing. But they will never get anywhere doing what you tell them directly. The business itself is absolutely worthless — and even irrelevant. The real business is getting people into the business. Don’t think it’s lost on me that religion often works this way: first you convert people — then what? Then you get them to convert people. Then what? Salvation, of course!
I think that’s false religion, and I’m well aware that it’s common. So what’s true? For Hillel and many people after him — it was love and nothing else (except learning more) that he strove for in life. The learning more was key though, because in life you are always encouraged to become superficial — to become careless, greedy, afraid. To love is natural, to build a life on that requires a commitment to truth, which is a commitment to move past the limited knowledge that each person has — by building on it, by growing, by questioning what you know and finding the bigger picture — a lifelong journey.
You can’t do that when your judgement is superficial, when it’s final, when it’s excessive and overly punitive. You can’t lead people to have a better life when everyone is sentenced to death for shoplifting, or to lifelong exile for the first sin someone can throw a stone at you for. It’s incredible to me how many people are against the death penalty, but in favour of cancel culture. They’re the same thing for different aspects of the human condition, and I’m against both.
And today you have people throwing stones at you just because you call them out for throwing stones without a proper look at the person they’re stoning. It’s happening more, and we said it would happen, and now they’re throwing stones at us for it. You know who else predicted that? Besides Einstein, Bob Dylan and John Lennon made it perfectly clear that sort of thing will happen. This is not a new problem, though it’s still getting worse.
“It’s incredible to me how many people are against the death penalty, but in favour of cancel culture. They’re the same thing for different aspects of the human condition, and I’m against both.”Narcissists idolise, lack true love of self (despite appearances) and project every fault and aspiration onto an idol, which they then destroy. In every instance of this there is monopoly — there is one possible truth, one possible way to do things, only one real solution to a problem — there is no room for science or rebellion or “playful cleverness” or even joking around, when too many things (that is, whatever the leader or abuser says) become ever-increasingly sacred. And all else becomes profane. Soon the pedestal becomes a stake to burn someone on.
What nuance, what introspection, what accountability (because nobody loves to talk about accountability and consequences more than authoritarians) leads to such grave error and terrible (and unnecessary) fates? How can simply disappointing a community lead people to build an entire Ministry of Truth and a Ministry of Love? To be propped up by for-profit media that cheers on the destruction like the Salem trials never ended?
But I’ve watched these people for my entire life, and I didn’t stop there. I read 1984, where the government was built on such behaviour. I watched Babylon 5 and the rise of interstellar fascism under total surveillance. I’ve spent years arguing against censorship in the form of extreme copyright, and watched as librarians — more than Free software advocates who say “Free as in Speech” fought tooth and nail against creeping surveillance and censorship. (Babylon 5 is fictional of course, as is 1984 — but I’m not sure it’s that much a lesser work than Orwell’s most notable fiction. It’s certainly relevant to modern life.)
Which isn’t to say that Free software isn’t just as important as libraries. The American Library Association largely get censorship and surveillance right, but the Free software movement largely gets computing right. These two wonderful things are both lacking in certain areas and need each other; or libraries will fall further prey to non-free software and DRM, which poses an existential threat to libraries — while Free software will fall further prey to censorship, authoritarianism and a crowdsourced social inquisition, that poses a completely existential threat to the Free software movement. Techrights has talked about this for years — what do you suppose Roy’s reward is? (I’ll give you a hint…)
I don’t think you really understand the lengths that I’ve gone to in this exploration of life and and the human condition. I’ve traveled and talked to people about their experiences in different countries, in different time periods (young and old, that is) and in different industries. I don’t just take Daniel Pocock’s exposure of corruption simply at his word — nor Roy’s. With every new bit of information that seems important, I’ve gone everywhere I can and talked with people, gotten second, third and fourth opinions when possible.
“Cancel culture is Careless culture, but I’m interested in the truth, not just what someone says is so.”When I found the Free Software Fellowship and Debian community, I read all of it. A little bit was skimmed, and I eventually stopped paying attention to “ahilter” and “garfield” when a clear pattern established itself at length. But I paid close attention to the replies, the accusations, the rebuttals, the official narrative. I talked to people I know, people I trust, I talked to strangers who might know something the rest do not — finding leads and following up. And it’s still possible that I’m wrong, but there is further evidence to the contrary.
Cancel culture is Careless culture, but I’m interested in the truth, not just what someone says is so. Thus before I decided that most likely, Pocock is telling the truth about FSFE; which certainly brings a lot of other parallel things into perspective — that was around the time Bruce Perens left OSI (again) and its other co-founder was cancelled (here’s a fun fact — supposedly he was cancelled from a list he just recently started participating in.)
Everybody wants this to be treated like a small picture and minor details when it’s actually very similar across the board, and the latter is something even Stallman needs to wake up to (if he hasn’t already.)
Still, open source is clearly one of the cults I joined and got out of. And since I shared one cult story, I’ll share that one as well. This is what I actually hate, Linus: people who bully other people with lies and fake agendas.
Being old-fashioned, I have a concept that my physical property is my physical property — upon purchase, ownership changes hands. That’s what “purchase” means. It does not mean “lease”. I also started with computers that didn’t have a hard drive. Software goes on the floppy, hardware runs the stuff on the floppy. I knew the BIOS existed, but it was part of the machine — it wasn’t software and I didn’t have any means to copy it anyway.
“Still, open source is clearly one of the cults I joined and got out of.”I would probably still be using DOS if USB hadn’t been invented. (Yes, I know about the Panasonic driver.)
But before FreeDOS was a thing, I sometimes dreamed of making my own DOS-like operating system that people could share freely. Fortunately someone else did this, although you still need non-free software to compile it. Darn you, 16-bit compilation. I don’t do lower-level coding anyway, so this really was just a dream.
I did become quite intrigued with what I commonly heard of as “Linux” and eventually got a floppy with tomsrtbt on it. I would gradually learn the commands and — oh, too many differences. Look at these lucky bastards running xwindows and I cant even copy this thing, because it isn’t a standard format. I didn’t know fsck or dd yet. I still don’t know if I could copy tomsrtbt, though I only have one floppy drive and I don’t have any media for it.
I bought Red Hat for $30, with a box and a CD in a jewel case — and a manual! And surely this thing will help (What the hell is this?) I tried installing it, I don’t think I had the right CPU for it. (Or the right graphics hardware. I know more about installing these things now.)
I got Mandrake for $5 and it came with a case — no big friendly cardboard box or manual, just shrinkwrap. And it installed! But a lot of good it did me; I didn’t understand user accounts, root or permissions, and I couldn’t do anything with it except open and close applications. It had IceWM and I still use that today.
A couple of years later, I got Ubuntu for free, but I didn’t have any hardware that would boot it at a reasonable speed. It took something like 5 to 10 minutes to start up. It’s okay if you don’t believe that, I didn’t either. But I was finally making progress and it was only a couple of years after this that I was installing my 12th or 15th distro and removing my last copy of Windows.
“It seems a lot of this was started by a guy called Richard Stallman, who a lot of people were speaking of as an unreasonable has-been (sigh) and blah blah blah…”I’d grown tired of Windows — I actually resisted Windows 95 until about 1999, and 98 until 2002 when everybody was using XP. 95 was useless and fugly, 98 was unstable, but XP was simply customer abuse. Call us and activate your copy of Windows? Piss off! I’m done with Microsoft, I’ve always hated Apple and their condescension towards everyone who can actually use a computer, but what are my options? I know, I’ll run OpenDOS and do everything from there. (I did this for a while.)
But by 2007 I was Windows-free at last, and I’d spent a long time replacing 98 piecemeal with free (as in freedom) alternatives. Not until 2005 did I have a real alternative, so here I was in the beginning of my journey with “open source.” I was running my DOS programs in DosBox and dosemu, I was experimenting with Windows programs in Wine, I was trying new programming languages — eventually JavaScript and Python, and of course I wanted to share all this stuff with other people — how do you do that?
It seems a lot of this was started by a guy called Richard Stallman, who a lot of people were speaking of as an unreasonable has-been (sigh) and blah blah blah, he made a bunch of utilities but like Eddie Izzard explains about World War II history, open source came along and said “Hey, need a kernel?” and Free software said “Where the f- — have you guys been?” “Having breakfast!” “Oh, alright then, here, just take all the credit for everything we’ve done!” Like you do…
Being the incredible sucker that I am, I fell for it. And I should have known better by now, but the truth is that even by 2007, I hadn’t read as much about cults or looked at as much of that part of my life yet. I’d certainly looked a lot at my childhood, though the tools I had for that were still pretty crude. I didn’t have names for most of the experiences I’d had or behaviours I’d encountered. But I had some idea about them.
“Being the incredible sucker that I am, I fell for it. And I should have known better by now, but the truth is that even by 2007, I hadn’t read as much about cults or looked at as much of that part of my life yet.”I hadn’t even learned nearly enough about the history of Microsoft. I did know about making it so early versions of Windows were tied to Microsoft DOS only. I knew about the Internet Explorer bundling. I knew I hated Microsoft as a company for the way it screws over customers, but mainly I wanted to help people get this new operating system — if I could only figure enough of it out myself.
For years now, there was this new version of Free software called “open source”. Open source is just like Free software — but it’s more reasonable (haha… good one guys) and unlike Richard Stallman, who is a pedantic, sanctimonious old fart, Linus Torvalds is like “Buddy Christ” in Dogma and he’s cool and doesn’t care if you use Free software or “open source” or whatever — and so on…
I did learn, not through trial and error so much as daily life, what open source did hold sacred though.
First, people started treating me like crap if I put a dollar sign in Micro$oft. (And Heaven Forbid that you call it Microsuck or Microshit!) I thought that was a bit of an overreaction — you have a problem with me poking fun at monopoly and greed? Just as with the guy who slid away from me in his seat because I’m not a big homophobe, I put it down to “some people just don’t get it” and continued to not associate the movement with this peculiar reaction.
The best was yet to come, of course. And it was long ago that I decided I’d have enough of GNOME spewing bloat into my operating system (to clarify: the operating system on my computer — which GNOME was a guest on, not the boss of me…) though it was also early that I heard developers and fanboys gloating that I would “have no choice” or way to get rid of GNOME, while other people bragged that everything was optional in the Linux world.
The bullshit was getting thicker and harder to ignore, and the fact that it’s bullshit (sustained campaigns of lying and conditioning are bullying) is half the problem. If these are isolated incidents — if you think of GNOME as a project or software group entirely separate from everybody else (if only, eh?) then it’s natural to dismiss this. Not until you meet countless people with this attitude does it become truly worrisome — merely annoying and obnoxious and arrogant.
“It turns out that Torvalds (PBUH) is the very final word on Earth between what we can like and dislike after all.”Enter his holiness the Dalai Torvalds. (Sorry Mr. Gyatso, I really do find you likeable.)
It turns out that Torvalds (PBUH) is the very final word on Earth between what we can like and dislike after all. NVidia? F- — You! Facebook and Twitter? Hateful and horrible, perhaps. (I wouldn’t disagree with that…)
Microsoft? Hold the phone!
You don’t just go around bashing Microsoft, you little terrorist snots! This is why Free software is about hate, and open source is about loooooove! Just like Microsoft loooooooves Linux.
Here we go again…
So Torvalds spends years getting (and begrudgingly of course, accepting) the unofficial title of god of open source, don’t call it GNU, don’t put dollar signs in Micro$oft, if you criticise a giant corporation that’s “hate” and oh ho ho, I found the Sacred Cow!
After watching Torvalds smear the very movement he spent years dishonestly co-opting, I gave Free software a more thorough examination. I stopped listening to open source rewrite history. I’d actually already grown curious about the two distinct narratives — only one of which claims to be “The same, but better than the original” while the other claims to be about things that are “Free, as in speech.”
“Differences aside, I’ve believed in Free software ever since that revelation. And I’ve watched people try to paint Free software as a cult, just because it’s built on actual principles which it strongly recommends adhering to.”And I realised I’d been had. I can tell you from experience, when you leave a cult or an abusive relationship, one of the first things you might be tempted to do is hold a press conference, warning everybody to “Stay The F- — Away from these people!” It doesn’t work, because people who are inclined to be taken advantage of are going to be taken advantage of — sometimes. I didn’t know the first thing about how open source had managed to bullshit everybody, only that they’d done it. And that history was an important subject after all. (Thanks, Linus!)
I stopped reflexively ignoring people who “added” the word “GNU” to the name, as suddenly it seemed they had a pretty good reason for doing so (not being entirely co-opted and spoken over) and I started learning more about Richard Stallman — not just the sort of stuff you get from first impressions, you know. Turns out, he’s a lot more admirable when you judge him on the content of his character, rather than trusting opportunistic corporate assholes.
I started giving money to Free software supporters instead of open source people, and I started getting FSF newsletters in the mail, which I still hate even though I no longer get them (only because I don’t agree with Stallman on what licence they should have.)
You might think that’s unreasonable, but I had years of open source telling me it was foolish to judge a program by its license. “Same thing, only better” indeed! (What? A newsletter isn’t a computer program? Who knew?)
Differences aside, I’ve believed in Free software ever since that revelation. And I’ve watched people try to paint Free software as a cult, just because it’s built on actual principles which it strongly recommends adhering to. Sorry guys, principles and cults are two different things. Most of Stallman’s faults are a straw man, and compromise doesn’t always make you more reasonable. At a certain point, it becomes synonymous with loss of integrity or security.
In fact, if you’re in a narcissistic abusive relationship, your “owner” will frequently say you’re being “unreasonable” and “uncompromising” if you don’t yield to them on every single thing they want.
“In fact, if you’re in a narcissistic abusive relationship, your “owner” will frequently say you’re being “unreasonable” and “uncompromising” if you don’t yield to them on every single thing they want.”It’s not that unreasonable and uncompromising aren’t things that actually exist — they exist, but the idea is being exploited to gaslight, manipulate you and enforce double standards, which is why I’ve said that Torvalds is a schmuck ever since he unfairly smeared Free software. And I’ve also defended him practically every time I’ve said that with “at least he’s better than the guy that will take over for him.” That’s also true. It doesn’t make him great, but it’s an important point for the future.
I note with amusement that Torvalds is never shown except from the waist up, so anybody’s hand could be up there to make him talk — Gates, Ballmer, Nadella — even Raymond! Only joking guys, we know that Torvalds was outsmarted and outschmucked by Zemlin. Though I find it extraordinary that Raymond (who as I’ve said, should not be cancelled because that serves these corporations more than it hurts Raymond) claims to be a friend of Stallman’s when he planned to cancel him so many years ago. Instead, he just completely co-opted Free software.
Bruce Perens himself says that open source overshadowed it — and that “this was never fair.” I agree! When I talk about how corrupt open source has been for years, note that Perens said the worst of what I’m saying all the way back in 1999 (he’s also the person that revealed the plan to cancel Stallman years earlier.) And he said it on the now-heavily-censored Debian mailing lists of all places, only a snail’s hop away from where the Open Source Definition itself was invented!
So you know, fine — steal the Free software movement and then say “it’s about hate” when you’ve lied to literally millions of people about it for decades. Whatever, asshole.
“And you can tell from his face that the abuse he has been through as a pawn (convinced he’s a star) amounts to torture, and torture is f—ed up.”But do I agree with cancelling Torvalds? No, I think it’s too bad we no longer live in a world where it’s safe to pie Bill Gates (is the guy that did that still alive?) because Torvalds deserves such honour. I do note, and not with actual glee (because the truth is it’s seriously f—ed up even if it’s karma) that he is now in a controlling, narcissistic relationship with the foundation named after the kernel named after his own freaking name! (Even for karma, that’s pretty wicked. I don’t think he’s that bad…)
And you can tell from his face that the abuse he has been through as a pawn (convinced he’s a star) amounts to torture, and torture is f—ed up. When they talk about what Assange has gone through and they show Torvalds’ face, you can tell there are similarities (in the intent, not the degree.) Every time I’ve mentioned this, I’ve pointed out that I don’t support Torvalds’ torture by the corporations exploiting him. Not even if he exploited us. Why? Because it’s always wrong! You aren’t going to save the human race by doing that. In fact that’s the whole point of this (so far) 227-paragraph story!
Yes Torvalds, you’re a schmuck. What your owners are doing is even worse, and you don’t deserve it, nor does anybody else.
Torture is like the death penalty. The risk of doing it to the wrong person is too unacceptable, so you can’t do it to even to those who almost certainly deserve it because what if you’re wrong?
“You think it’s unhelpful to call for a stop to crucifying basically innocent people and to start looking at the actual terrible people, who are trying to control us and ruin the lives of people we respect and admire?”But do you really still think it’s unhelpful? To put history back in context? To expose corruption, to call out liars, to defend good people, to tell people to be less superficial, to insist they use their skills and perspective and freedom to obtain information from multiple sources, over some dubious Grand-Inquisitor-like authority?
You think it’s unhelpful to call for a stop to crucifying basically innocent people and to start looking at the actual terrible people, who are trying to control us and ruin the lives of people we respect and admire? — So you can be in charge of who we choose to be led by instead? You think it’s unhelpful to criticise the worst sorts of hypocrisy?
Who are you helping then?
Who do you want us to believe you’re helping? Narcissism and cult tactics are all about worlds full of promises, mountains of lies, and endless excuses why those promises weren’t delivered — when they were all just a carrot to make people do something they didn’t ever need to do.
When in doubt, just rewrite history. And don’t be surprised when your regime falls down under the weight of its own bullshit.
Until then, false authority under false pretense gets parodied. Thank you Mr. Carlin, thank you Mr. Peters, thank you Mr. Cleese, thank you Mr. Chappelle.
“…shall we continue to throw out the old rulebooks, along with more of our own founders, and continue to rewrite history to serve the all-benevolent, all-powerful corporation?”And thank you, Your Holiness. You went on F–x News and made a joke at the clueless fraud trying to get one over on you. It wasn’t even a mean joke — but it was absolutely and elegantly fair play.
The rest of us are just human, though some people are begging you to give that up and do things their way instead. Politeness is hardly a cause worth enslaving people for. Why do we choose to entertain these people? Harsher control is not really justice, but leaders (the ones calling for harsher control that looks a lot like good old cult tactics) serving as good examples would help far more.
Can they set a good example? Or shall we continue to throw out the old rulebooks, along with more of our own founders, and continue to rewrite history to serve the all-benevolent, all-powerful corporation? █
“You’ve Changed“ — Billie Holiday
“You Got It“ — Roy Orbison
“Long Train Running“ — Doobie Brothers
Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (public domain)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA