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

06.01.20

What It Would Take for Linus Torvalds to Leave Linux Foundation Without the Linux Trademark and Without Linux

Posted in GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft, OSDL at 6:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

2011: Groklaw Opposes Novell’s Membership in the Linux Foundation, Due to Microsoft Ties

A registered trademark

Summary: It’s nice to think that the founder of Linux can just take his project and walk away, moving elsewhere, i.e. away from the Microsoft-employed executives who now “boss” him; but it’s not that simple anymore

THE Linux Foundation in 2020 is not the same Linux Foundation it was in 2015. It’s hardly similar to the 2010 Linux Foundation. The Foundation started as an alternative (or merger/successor) to OSDL, which had gotten too close to Microsoft and upset its employees. The founder and chief of OSDL is nowhere to be found anymore (maybe Microsoft found an ashtray for him, somewhere) and most people hardly know — or at least properly remember — OSDL.

For reasons we’ve been covering here for a very long time there may be very legitimate reasons for Torvalds and his colleagues to do to Mr. Zemlin what they did to Mr. Cohen. Considering the fact that Zemlin et al (many people from Microsoft there days; still salaried by Microsoft) do not support the GPL (which Torvalds likes) and give Microsoft’s GitHub just about everything (despite condemnations from Torvalds) one has to wonder if there’s more Microsoft in Linux Foundation than “Linux” or “Linus”.

“This research wasn’t done solely by yours truly but also an unnamed associate, a longtime GNU/Linux user (longer than myself) who thinks departure from the Zemlin-led and Microsoft-steered ‘PAC’ is well overdue, perhaps for the very survival of Linux in its current form.”So we recently did a little research into what Torvalds leaving (likely with his ‘first baby’, Linux) would entail. He’s aware that Git, his ‘second baby’ (with all due respect to his daughters) is in some sense under attack from GitHub as well (the “embrace, “enhance/extend”, “extinguish” type, where the outcome isn’t Free software but a centralised Microsoft monopoly).

This research wasn’t done solely by yours truly but also an unnamed associate, a longtime GNU/Linux user (longer than myself) who thinks departure from the Zemlin-led and Microsoft-steered ‘PAC’ is well overdue, perhaps for the very survival of Linux in its current form.

The other day I queried: “What do the papers/paperwork say about Linux (C) and (TM)? Is it public knowledge?”

“It has been public knowledge for ages,” said the associate about the trademarks (TM) — a fact I’m well aware of. Things have not changed in recent years because the official pages and statements are still the same (we assume the legal paperwork likewise), namely:

This is a statement of The Linux Foundation’s trademarks and its policy and guidelines relating to use of trademarks owned by The Linux Foundation and used by projects under The Linux Foundation. Individual projects under The Linux Foundation may have additional guidelines and requirements for the use of trademarks intended to imply compliance with certain criteria or other requirements, and in such cases compliance with such criteria and requirements is necessary.

For purposes of this document, references to trademarks or marks include all trade and service marks and logos owned by The Linux Foundation legal entity. Projects operating as separately incorporated entities managed by The Linux Foundation have their own trademarks, policies and usage guidelines.

The “Linux®” Trademark

For information regarding the Linux trademark, owned by Linus Torvalds, please see the Linux Mark Institute (administered by The Linux Foundation). Your use of the Linux trademark must be in accordance with the Linux Mark Institute’s policy.

The Linux Foundation’s Trademarks

A list of The Linux Foundation’s registered trademarks, pending registrations and trademarks in use can be found at https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-list/.

The Linux Foundation Trademark Usage Guidelines

Trademarks are used to provide assurance to the community of consistency with respect to the quality of products or services with which the mark is associated. This policy attempts to strike the proper balance between two competing interests: 1) the need of The Linux Foundation to ensure that its trademarks remain reliable indicators of the qualities that they have been created to preserve and 2) the need of The Linux Foundation to ensure that community members are able to discuss the projects with which The Linux Foundation is associated and to accurately describe the relationship between The Linux Foundation and the products and services offered by others.

A trademark provides the owner with an exclusive right to authorize or control the use of the mark. Your right to use a mark of The Linux Foundation is provided for in this policy and in the statement of permitted use, if any, that may accompany the trademark notice displayed on the website dedicated to the project. A copyright license, even an open source copyright license, does not include an implied right or license to use a trademark that may be related to the project developing the licensed software or other materials. Because open source licenses permit unrestricted modification of the copyrighted software, and The Linux Foundation has no intention of interfering with that right, your right to use any specific trademark of The Linux Foundation is not determined by your use of software made available under an open source license. Your right to use a mark is conditioned upon conforming to other requirements that are directly related to the qualities that the specific mark has been created to preserve.

Proper use of The Linux Foundation trademarks by following these trademark usage guidelines protects the value of The Linux Foundation trademarks. Any use of or reference to The Linux Foundation trademarks that is inconsistent with this trademark policy, or use of marks that are confusingly similar to trademarks of The Linux Foundation, is prohibited. All uses of The Linux Foundation trademarks, and all goodwill associated therewith, will inure solely to the benefit of The Linux Foundation.

Rules that Apply to Trademarks In General

There are some basic rules that apply to any use of any trade or service mark that you do not own, including any mark of The Linux Foundation, without the express permission of the owner.

  • A trademark should never be used as a verb or noun. A trademark should be used only as an adjective followed by the generic name/noun.
  • A trademark should not be used in the plural or possessive form.
  • A trademark should not be altered or amended in any way. A mark should not be combined with any other mark, hyphenated, abbreviated or displayed in parts. A trademark that is depicted as two or more words should not be compressed into one word. A logo should not be displayed with color variations, or with other elements superimposed on top of the logo.
  • A trademark should not be used as your domain name or as part of your domain name.
  • A trademark should not be used as part of your product name.
  • A trademark should not be incorporated into your company’s logos or designs.
  • A trademark notice should be used on the most prominent and/or first appearance of each mark of The Linux Foundation, and a trademark notice should not be changed. In particular, a ™ should not be changed to an ® in a trademark notice by anyone other than the owner. If you are unsure about whether a mark of The Linux Foundation is registered in your country, please contact us for additional guidance as to what trademark symbol you should use.

There are also some basic rights that everyone has to use any trademark, which are often referred to as “fair use,” and The Linux Foundation does not intend to restrict those rights. You may make fair use of word marks to make true factual statements. But fair use does not permit you to state or imply that the owner of a mark produces, endorses, or supports your company, products, or services. Even when making fair use of a trademark, you should acknowledge the owner of the trademark with a trademark notice, such as the notice displayed on The Linux Foundation project websites.

Rules and Policies Applicable to Marks Owned by The Linux Foundation

In addition to the generally applicable rules discussed above, there are a few specific rules that we ask everyone to follow when using trademarks owned by The Linux Foundation.

  • Use the full form of any trademarks (e.g., “The Linux Foundation”) in the first reference in all documents of mass communication, including marketing collateral and web pages. You may then use any abbreviated or short form references (e.g. “TLF”) within the same the document where the full form has already been used.
  • Use The Linux Foundation’s trademarks in a form that distinguishes them from the text around them, such as by capitalization, bold or italic fonts, or with quotation marks. Any use of registered trademarks as indicated in The Linux Foundation’s Trademark List at https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-list/ should include the ® symbol immediately after the first usage (e.g., “The Linux Foundation® projects develop open source….”). Any use of unregistered trademarks as listed in the Trademark List should include a TM immediately after the first usage (e.g., “The Core Infrastructure Initiative TM community seeks to secure….”)
  • Do not use The Linux Foundation trademarks in a manner that would disparage The Linux Foundation or its projects (e.g., untruthful advertising, false/misleading promotional materials, etc.).
  • Do not use a The Linux Foundation logo on the cover of a book or magazine without written permission from The Linux Foundation.
  • Do not use The Linux Foundation trademarks more prominently than your own company, product or service name.
  • Do not use a logo of The Linux Foundation on posters, brochures, signs, websites, or other marketing materials to promote your events, products or services without written permission from The Linux Foundation.
  • Do not refer to a product or service as being certified under any of The Linux Foundation’s marks unless your company has successfully undergone the requisite compliance testing and has explicit authorization to use such terms from The Linux Foundation.
  • Do not attempt to claim or assert any ownership rights in any mark of The Linux Foundation and do not attempt to register any The Linux Foundation trademark as a trademark, trade name, domain name, or “doing business as” name, alone or (unless specifically licensed) in combination with your own trademarks.

The Linux Foundation marks have been created and their use is expressly permitted for a specific purpose. Do not use logos or names of The Linux Foundation in any commercial or marketing context other than as expressly permitted in this policy unless you have obtained explicit written permission from The Linux Foundation to do so. The Linux Foundation permits the use of its trademarks for private and personal use to make t-shirts, stickers, and caps for yourself and your friends (meaning people from whom you don’t receive anything of value in return) in a manner that is consistent with the preservation of the goodwill and value of the mark.

You are also allowed to use a trademark or logo of The Linux Foundation as a link to the home page of the applicable project or to a web page on The Linux Foundation web site that is relevant to the reference so long as the link is in a manner that is consistent with the preservation of the goodwill and value of the mark. The link and all other usage of a logo of The Linux Foundation shall be done using the official versions of The Linux Foundation logos obtained from The Linux Foundation or its projects.

Here are examples of correct and incorrect uses of a logo of The Linux Foundation (noting that any actual use must also comply with the other requirements described herein):

[...]

Certain marks of The Linux Foundation have been created to enable you to communicate compatibility or interoperability of software or products. In addition to the requirement that any use of a mark to make an assertion of compatibility must, of course, be accurate, the use of these marks must avoid confusion regarding The Linux Foundation’s association with the product. The use of the mark cannot imply that The Linux Foundation or its projects are sponsoring or endorsing the product. The following are examples of proper and improper usage of these trademarks of The Linux Foundation:

Correct: <your product name> for <The Linux Foundation mark>

Correct: <your product/company name> plug-in for <The Linux Foundation mark>

Correct: <your product name> compatible with <The Linux Foundation mark>

Correct: <your product name> for use with <The Linux Foundation mark>

Correct: Quick Start for <The Linux Foundation mark> by <your company name>

Correct: <non-trademarked industry term> Day featuring <The Linux Foundation mark>

Correct: <non-trademarked industry term> Day with <The Linux Foundation mark>

Correct: <non-trademarked industry term> Day including <The Linux Foundation mark>

Incorrect: <The Linux Foundation mark> <your product name>

Incorrect: <The Linux Foundation mark> by <your company name>

Incorrect: <The Linux Foundation mark> – <your product name>

Incorrect: <your product/company name> – <The Linux Foundation mark>

Incorrect: <The Linux Foundation mark> Quick Start by <your company name>

Incorrect: <The Linux Foundation mark> Day

Incorrect: <The Linux Foundation mark> Day by <your company name>

Incorrect: <non-trademarked industry term> Day brought to you by <The Linux Foundation mark>

Questions, Comments, Concerns

We look to our community to help us retain the value of The Linux Foundation’s trade and service marks. If you have questions with respect to these guidelines or to report concerns regarding the use or misuse of a trademark of The Linux Foundation, or to obtain written permission for a proposed use of The Linux Foundation trademarks, contact: trademarks@linuxfoundation.org

Disclaimer

The Linux Foundation does not make any express or implied warranties, including but not limited to the warranties of non-infringement of any third party intellectual property rights. The Linux Foundation does not warrant that any pending trademark applications for trademarks of The Linux Foundation will result in any granted trademark protection. The Linux Foundation shall not be liable for any claims relating to user’s activities falling within the scope of the permission and user hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold The Linux Foundation and its contributors harmless against any such claims.

Updates

The Linux Foundation may release new versions of The Linux Foundation trademark policy or statements of permitted use of The Linux Foundation marks without notice.

This work is inspired by the Mozilla Foundation Trademark Policy and the GNOME Trademark Licensing. It is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (“CC-BY-4.0”, available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).

So that’s the legal part. We reproduce fully for preservation purposes (some day in the future these pages will change or cease to exist).

The Linux Mark refers specifically to “LINUX” and says:

The Linux Foundation protects the public and Linux users from unauthorized and confusing uses of the trademark and authorizes proper uses of the mark through an accessible sublicensing program. The Linux Foundation offers a free, perpetual, world-wide sublicense to approved sublicense applicants. In return, the sublicensee holders must agree not to challenge Linus Torvalds’ ownership of the Linux mark in any jurisdiction, and to provide proper attribution of ownership on their goods, services and elsewhere. The Linux Sublicense Agreement is available for review.

Here, you can learn more or read our Frequently Asked Questions about the trademark and LMI’s sublicensing program, apply for a sublicense to use the Linux trademark as part of your organization’s trademark, review terms of the Linux Sublicense Agreement, and report abuses of the Linux trademark that you’ve encountered. Please see the section on Fair Use for more information about public usage of the mark.

If you are interested in using Tux the Penguin in connection with your product or services, please see http://isc.tamu.edu/~lewing/linux/ for details. Tux the Penguin is an image created by Larry Ewing, and is not owned by The Linux Foundation.

[...]

Sublicense Information

Trademark Attribution

This page describes how to publicly acknowledge that Linus Torvalds is the owner of the Linux trademark.

Attribution is For Everyone

Even if your use of the Linux trademark doesn’t fall under the scope of the Linux Sublicense Agreement, you should still attribute ownership of the mark to Linus Torvalds in two ways:

1. For each web page, advertisement, or publication, the first prominent appearance of LINUX should feature the “circle R” character adjacent to the X, as follows:

Linux®

2. At the end of your web page, advertisement, publication or media broadcast, include the following text in a legible font and size:

Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.

Attribution for Sublicensees

The Linux Sublicense Agreement sets forth how the mark should be attributed by sublicensees. Sublicensees are required to place the following legend conspicuously on each piece of authorized goods, and at least once in the area of the title page of any documentation or sales literature accompanying each authorized good or service:

The registered trademark Linux® is used pursuant to a sublicense from the Linux Foundation, the exclusive licensee of Linus Torvalds, owner of the mark on a world-wide basis.

Space Limitations

The Linux Foundation understands that space limitations can make including these attributions difficult. When made necessary by space limitations, any reasonable facsimile of these attributions may be used. In case of doubt as to the proper shortened form, examples may be submitted to the Linux Foundation for approval.

Forms of the Mark

Linux is a word-mark, meaning that any form of the word is covered by the trademark registration. This includes all-caps (“LINUX®”) or the standard capitalized form (“Linux®”). Either form is acceptable to the Linux Foundation so long as it is presented in a legible font.

Who Needs a Sublicense?

In cases of fair use, members of the public may use or refer to a registered trademark without a license from the owner.

Examples of Fair Use

If you are a journalist interested in writing articles that include the term Linux, you do not need a sublicense. If you are printing up pencils, stenciling T-shirts, or distributing coffee cups with a legend on them like “Linux® is the greatest!” or “Even my Mother uses Linux®!” this is normally considered fair use.

Some uses of Linux require the user to obtain a sublicense.

Examples of Use Requiring A Sublicense.

If you plan to market a Linux-based product or service to the public using a trademark that includes the element “Linux,” such as “Super Dooper Linux” or “Real Time Linux Consultants” you are required to apply for and obtain a sublicense from the Linux Foundation. This is true whether or not you apply to register your trademark with a government.

If in Doubt, Find Out

Many questions are answered in the FAQ. If you are unable to locate an answer to your question, please contact us at trademarks@linuxfoundation.org.

We have omitted the FAQ. It’s not part of the legal contract.

The “tl;dr” is, “Linux” is still in Linus Torvalds’ bag, usage of the trademark is subjected to approval (there can be objections to misuse, except perhaps when Microsoft does it… because Microsoft is nowadays “special”), and the logo is in another bag, Larry Ewing’s, “and is not owned by The Linux Foundation.”

“How about copyrights? That’s the trickier part. Trademarks are simpler.”OK, we got that. So in theory Larry Ewing and Linus Torvalds can prevent Zemlin and Microsoft from misusing the name and logo.

How about copyrights? That’s the trickier part. Trademarks are simpler.

“Well, again, just to be clear,” an associate noted, “the project is continually reminding everyone that the trademarks are his: (from kernel.org, a site that changes over time and we track changes to it via RSS)

Copyright and license

Except where otherwise stated, content on this site is copyright (C) 1997-2014 by The Linux Kernel Organization, Inc. and is made available to you under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Distributed software is copyrighted by their respective contributors and are distributed under their own individual licenses.

Legal Disclaimer

This site is provided as a public service by The Linux Kernel Organization Inc., a California 501(c)3 nonprofit corporation. Our
servers are located in San Francisco, CA, USA; Palo Alto, CA, USA; Corvallis, OR, USA; Portland, OR, USA and Montréal, Québec, Canada. Use in violation of any applicable laws is strictly prohibited.

Neither the Linux Kernel Organization nor any of its sponsors make any guarantees, explicit or implicit, about the contents of this site. Use at your own risk.

Trademarks

Linux is a Registered Trademark of Linus Torvalds. All trademarks are property of their respective owners.

“However,” an associate explained about the Foundation (LF), “I am not sure how much the public knows about that nor how much LF intends to honor the legal situation. They are busy wiping their collective assess with the GPL, for example. There would be a fight, but he [Torvalds] can take them and go elsewhere.”

There are lots of truly dubious things at the LF; we’ve got a large wiki page listing some of these…

“I am aware of the above,” I said regarding trademarks, “but I am more interested in copyright assignment. I assumed there might be something like a CLA, knowing the LF produces crap advocacy to that effect.”

“Torvalds’ right-hand men are Microsofters (not by choice; not his choosing), which does not help…”Notice all the whitepapers the LF has been producing lately; they’re not about freedom but about corporations.

It’s nice to think that Torvalds can kick out that corporate influence over his project/s. Only if developers would follow him could he achieve this properly (at risk of severe media attacks on him for doing so and we saw a sample of it two years ago when he was painted as rude, sexist and so on); nowadays approximately 80% of the coders are of the ‘Big Tech’ cabal (not only GAFAM). They also have a grip on the media; see what the media did to RMS last year…

Torvalds’ right-hand men are Microsofters (not by choice; not his choosing), which does not help…

“Some copyrights in Linux are also Microsoft’s.”If Torvalds leaves, it leaves the project at risk of being even more tightly controlled by Microsoft, a company that loves to control its opposition like it controls its own assets.

Some copyrights in Linux are also Microsoft’s. Not kidding…

So code could be revoked to make “Linux” less attractive than some other thing. MINUX?

“The code is different,” the associate noted regarding copyrights. “It’s mostly under the GPL and The copyrights are held by the various contributors. There is no copyright assignment requirement. Some other projects require filling out paperwork to transfer copyright for all contributions. Linux does not do that and there is not even a mention of it in the developers’ guide though license labeling is covered in detail. However, it’s not spelled out. I presume that is because copyright law spells it out already.”

“For many years Microsoft lawyers and lobbyists were working to besiege Linux legally as they loathe the GPL.”Imagine a scenario where a group of developers is incited to reject Torvalds (remember what happened to RMS) and work on some LF-led kernel with the same code but a different name. It’s not unthinkable. Money and bribed media can accomplish all sorts of things… and Torvalds can probably envision such scenarios, which become deterrents.

“However,” the associate continued, “one of the sore points for the detractors get who angry at Linus is his support of the GPL:

For many years Microsoft lawyers and lobbyists were working to besiege Linux legally as they loathe the GPL. Now they buy keynote talks inside copyleft/GPL conferences. They try to control the narrative while actively discouraging the GPL’s adoption and badmouthing it in the media, sometimes through proxies.

“Perhaps deep inside Torvalds already feels rather powerless — uncertain that he’s still controlling Linux and can take it away from all the corporations that hide behind the name “Linux Foundation”.”Long story short(er), Torvalds can absolutely take his trademark and walk elsewhere, leaving the LF without the ability to use the name “Linux” (the LF itself would need to rename itself). But with copyright assignments all over the place (unlike FSF, Canonical etc.) Torvalds does not exercise full control over all the pertinent contributions and 2 years ago we saw that partly IBM-owned media (which caused him to be temporarily removed from his own project!) isn’t on his side. Perhaps deep inside Torvalds already feels rather powerless — uncertain that he’s still controlling Linux and can take it away from all the corporations that hide behind the name “Linux Foundation”.

01.15.20

OSI Board at Microsoft: This is How Institutions Die or Completely Lose Their Purpose/Direction

Posted in Microsoft, OSDL, OSI at 3:27 am by Guest Editorial Team

At ‘best’ they survive, only to promote Microsoft’s agenda and openwashing

OSI Microsoft photo op

Summary: The above photo (or meeting) may mark the turning point of the Openwashing as-a-Standard Initiative (OSI), which less than a year earlier took a bucket of money from Microsoft

THE above is not “fake news…”

All these people actually stood (or sat) there to take a photograph with Microsoft. Look how nonchalant they are.

“We’ve spent 30 minutes or so looking for additional notes (or photos, newer/older ones) to no avail…”This photo was taken following the spring 2018 face-to-face meeting hosted at the Microsoft office in San Francisco,” Simon Phipps explained on May 1st, 2018. “Back row: Faidon Liambotis, Chris Lamb, Simon Phipps, Allison Randal, Molly de Blanc, Patrick Masson [and] Front row: Josh Simmons, VM Brasseur, Carol Smith, Italo Vignoli, Richard Fontana.”

“The (co)founder of the OSI left in protest earlier this month.”The meeting took place a few months after this (which Microsoft staff then promoted in the OSI’s blog, having entered the Board and of course paid a lot of money to OSI less than a year earlier; they’re all colleagues and bossed by one another). This remains a very troubling episode in the OSI’s history. The (co)founder of the OSI left in protest earlier this month. We’re still seeing additional if not belated articles about it (added to Daily Links).

We’ve spent 30 minutes or so looking for additional notes (or photos, newer/older ones) to no avail… there appears to be just about no record anywhere on the Web of the above meeting. Nothing. Prove us otherwise… if anyone knows about or can find text regarding this meeting, please let us know.

“We’ve seen similar things at the Linux Foundation (LF) and we can recall the same from Mr. Cohen at OSDL… before everyone quit and formed LF to replace OSDL (rendering Cohen obsolete). He had been meeting with Microsoft in private, which upset a lot of people at the time.”This reminds us of how Richard Stallman (RMS) gave a talk at Microsoft without the FSF saying anything about it. This is exceptionally odd because usually the FSF not only announces but repeatedly advertises RMS talks even months in advance.

We’ve seen similar things at the Linux Foundation (LF) and we can recall the same from Mr. Cohen at OSDL… before everyone quit and formed LF to replace OSDL (rendering Cohen obsolete). He had been meeting with Microsoft in private, which upset a lot of people at the time. There are still some articles on the subject (even on the Web, despite Internet rot).

“I would love to see all open source innovation happen on top of Windows.”

Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO

“Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse – external or internal – is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted.”

Prof. Eugene H “Spaf” Spafford, father of the field of Internet Security

01.01.20

Linux Suggestion for 2020 – Linus Should Grab His Trademark and Abandon the Linux Foundation Like He Did OSDL

Posted in Kernel, Microsoft, OSDL at 1:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Entryism gone way too far

Microsoft will kill Linux with its 'love'. No way! Linux is GPL, they can't do that! A Microsoft employee is second in command now.

[youtube |lbry.tv]

Summary: There’s already history of Linus Torvalds and his colleagues quitting their ‘boss’ (OSDL) to find greener pastures; it’s time for them to do the same thing again

WITH Microsoft gaining greater power inside the Linux Foundation and Linux itself (even development leadership positions) it doesn’t surprise me that the hard-drive I bought two days ago comes pre-formatted with exFAT, which my system cannot read (shades of OOXML). Microsoft does not want EXT4 to become popular; it wants to control the market and its ‘standards’, not only with software patents but with its own staff and choices.

“The Linux Foundation is in a lot of ways rogue and defunct.”The above video, which is new and which was promoted in Linux Questions last night, predicts a Torvalds retirement (the only and primary prediction in the title). It would be absolutely terrible if that happened because we already know who would be left in charge, notably people who received many salaries tainted with Microsoft money and who worked to advance Microsoft’s proprietary software (e.g. Hyper-V) inside Linux. So one should certainly hope that Torvalds will stay on board for a long time to come or maybe even grab his trademark and quit (with exodus) the Linux Foundation like he did OSDL. The Linux Foundation is in a lot of ways rogue and defunct. In some areas it flagrantly adopts Linux-hostile policies. It openly and publicly promotes things that aren’t even compatible with Linux.

It has been part of a long process, culminating about 4 years ago when the community was kicked out and the company that had called Linux “cancer” put in positions of power. Steve Ballmer said “Linux is not in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches.” Now we have people near Torvalds’ position — a leadership position — who are 100% Microsoft employees. Microsoft the serial GPL violator.

09.28.19

LF Kool-Aid is Unhealthy to Linux

Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, IBM, Kernel, Marketing, Microsoft, OSDL, Red Hat at 3:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The Linux Foundation (LF) business model, which revolves around marketing and openwashing, is draining the life out of Linux

LF Kool-Aid

Summary: Lack of devotion to Linux, the very thing that the LF is named after, is putting the project at peril; Linux is meanwhile, under the auspices of the LF and Microsoft GitHub, becoming IBM™ systemd®

HESITATION to publish this article can be attributed solely to largely speculative remarks about how Linus Torvalds thinks and feels. He has not spoken to me for a long time, though I don’t choose to interpret that as snobbery. I just don’t think he’s free to say as much as he did in the past (we corresponded even before the Linux Foundation existed).

Some time earlier this month (depending on one’s subscription/paywall status) I saw a photograph of Torvalds at LWN. I don’t see many photographs of him anymore even though I read Linux news all day long; he keeps a relatively low profile and he doesn’t make many public appearances any longer. The ‘face of Linux’ has changed. So anyway, earlier this month LWN published an article with the following photograph of Torvalds, who is only in his forties. I don’t want to ‘creep up’ and talk about his personal life, but this made me wonder if Torvalds even leaves the house much (he says he works in a bathrobe; he apparently exercises at home only, or so I’m led to assume because there’s a treadmill there); he looks older than he is in this photo. He looks/seems to have aged faster in recent years. Readers can judge for themselves. This is 2019:

Linus Torvalds 2019

5 years ago (famous picture, mirrored for comparative purposes):

Linus Torvalds 2014

Read the comments in LWN. “Is that really a photo of Torvalds on the left? Jesus, he looks like he has aged like, 20 years since 2012,” says the first comment.

“He’s not wearing glasses, looks like a very different person without them” was the unconvincing first reply. I saw him without eyeglasses many times before.

The next comment said, “bad photograph, perhaps, i saw him in 2018, he looked much younger” and immediately after that: “Was that before he took the politeness training break?”

This refers to the famous incident we’ll come to in a moment.

Out of 8 comments in total only a single comment (the one by Paul McKenney) isn’t about that photograph of Torvalds (and what it says about aging). So people were certainly taken aback.

I personally have a lot of respect for Torvalds. He’s a geek and he’s a hard-working person. Very hard-working. He typically releases Linux and its release candidates on a Sunday, sometimes even late at night or whilst on holiday. That’s dedication. It’s a 30-year (nearly 30) devotion.

Torvalds is in it for Linux.

Zemlin is in it for the money.

Microsoft is in it for sabotage.

“Zemlin is in it for the money.”The Linux Foundation is a facilitator of corporations’ power (including Microsoft’s). It may have outlived its usefulness (long ago). There’s also the IBM factor, which can give room for concern. In the 1980s we had RMS, FSF and his GNU project/manifesto. The 1990s saw media shifting all attention to Torvalds, the ‘new wunderkind’ (child prodigy) on the scene. IBM was happy to boost him as a poster child after he had made a kernel that went well with GNU (he said Linux was nothing professional like GNU). In the 2000s GNU was already ignored; “What’s that,” people might respond. “Oh….. You mean Linux!”

In the 2010s Red Hat was propping up systemd after the ‘Pulseaudio experiment’. It was introduced initially as just an init system (process number one or zero); from “nothing professional like Linux” it’s quickly turning into a replacement to most of Linux. The 2020s, in IBM’s vision (now that it owns Red Hat), might be an IBM-controlled system with very frequent releases of systemd to keep the competition always behind, always chasing IBM.

The LF has had virtually nothing to say about technical aspects and competitive aspects of the above. Nothing. It’s too busy doing what it does best: outsourcing projects to Microsoft (GitHub, where systemd too is hosted).

“Torvalds might not be in real control of the project he started almost 3 decades ago. Maybe he should consider picking his trademark and relocating elsewhere, as he did back in 2007.”Maybe it’s time to begrudgingly reach the conclusion that LF became another OSDL. A lot of people don’t know or don’t remember it, but OSDL was disbanded after it had been mostly abandoned by key Linux people. This is a matter of suppressed public record. They hated the OSDL and thought it went all wrong. It used terms like “IP” to sell services (article by John Oates), it wanted its own ‘GitHub’ (article by Ingrid Marson), it wanted Microsoft Office, and it was generally getting close to Microsoft. Sounds familiar? To quote Slashdot: “Martin Taylor, Microsoft’s general manager of platform strategy, declined to comment on the specifics of what was discussed when he met with OSDL’s CEO Stuart Cohen, only to say that they met.”

Readers have long told us that Torvalds went sort of silent or at least quiet after serving some time in the ‘penalty box’ one year ago (due to a media lynch akin to that which ousted Richard Stallman; he’s being pressured to be more 'corporate' (a 'socially-engineered' Torvalds), never use strong words, or else risk ousting). Judging by the photo above (it’s public), he might not be all that happy either. Torvalds might not be in real control of the project he started almost 3 decades ago. Maybe he should consider picking his trademark and relocating elsewhere, as he did back in 2007. Jim Zemlin and his corporate friends can carry on running their PR agency under a different name. Maybe they’ll even be asked, belatedly, to pay their taxes (if the IRS reassesses their status). “Not under my name…”

08.03.19

How the Linux Foundation Devolved From Community-Centric to Microsoft (in GitHub) Projects

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, OSDL at 4:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The Linux Foundation stands for almost nothing anymore

Winux Foundation logo

Summary: The history of the Foundation which employs Linus Torvalds shows a gradual and at times rapid change of focus; it has become little more than a cash register for corporate deposits and influence-buying (like a PAC)

IT IS EASY TO SEE THAT THE Linux Foundation, or the “Winux Foundation” as one reader of ours chose to call it (he perfected the logo above), isn’t moving in a positive direction. This year or the past year it has gotten a lot worse — to the point where we dropped a lot of coverage about patents (especially in the US) and instead focused on the Foundation. It’s a subject we’ve covered since its inception more than 12 years ago. I’m totally not new to it; I’ve covered this foundation’s internal affairs very closely since the very start and even prior to it (before OSDL, Torvalds’ employer since 2003, sacked its staff and was absorbed into Zemlin’s group, whereupon a rename happened*, leaving OSDL people seeking alternative routes**)

If one looks at the Foundation’s site as it looked one decade ago, “Community, Collaborate, Participate” appear as three consecutive top-level sections. They did at least strive to appear like they stand for something. This is what things looked like a decade ago at the “Linux Foundation” (which did not snub and mock the actual community, i.e. people who develop and use GNU/Linux). Today, in 2019, top-level sections at the “Linux Foundation” are “Projects, Membership, Events, Training, Resources, Newsroom, About”

“The sole goal is to maximise profits.”No “Community”.

No “Collaborate”.

No “Participate” (unless you pay, i.e. “Membership”).

When did it all change? It didn’t happen overnight.

By 2014 the Linux Foundation only had “COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS” left in top-level sections (“Community, Collaborate, Participate” had been removed). It’s no longer there anymore. Now it’s just a bunch of Microsoft (in GitHub) projects, controlled by massive companies like AT&T.

“Linux” is to the Linux Foundation what Linux was to SCO before the lawsuit. Or what Xenix was to Microsoft. It’s something that’s kept at the edge or even at the corner while bigger projects are promoted instead. The sole goal is to maximise profits.
____
* A lot of people don’t know this, but linuxfoundation.org (the domain) and linuxfoundation.com were both registered even years before the actual foundation existed (mind timelines in the Wayback Machine [1, 2]). Back in the 1990s the “Linux Foundation” site sold non-Linux things. It wasn’t even about Linux.
** Stuart Cohen, OSDL’s chief and then CSI (Collaborative Software Initiative) chief, vanished off the radar about a decade ago; it’s hard to see him publicly at any capacity. His online presence is mainly interviews from the OSDL and CSI days, i.e. more than a decade back.

05.28.19

Linux Foundation and the Big Surveillance Industry, Media Industry, Microsoft Azure

Posted in GNU/Linux, Marketing, Microsoft, OSDL at 5:12 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

James Clapper

Summary: The Linux Foundation has become a complex creature with intricate corporate ties and government ties as well (especially the US government); these relationships need to be better understood

IT HAS BEEN a while since we last wrote about the Linux Foundation. We habitually post links to news about it (in our daily links), but we haven’t had time to write articles on the subject. Partly because affairs at the European Patent Office (EPO) are heating up again, culminating in a likely strike next month.

“That undoubtedly disputes claims that the PAC exists merely to pay Mr. Torvalds his salary.”Quite a few things have happened at Zemlin’s PAC this past month. First of all, we came to discover that Amanda McPherson no longer works there. She was receiving about as much money (salary at around half a million dollars per year) as Linus Torvalds. For marketing. That undoubtedly disputes claims that the PAC exists merely to pay Mr. Torvalds his salary. More curious, however, is the background of her successor/replacement. It’s a former spokesperson of James Clapper, best known for lying and perjury (he is deeply connected to Edward Snowden’s employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, and US spying operations at a Federal level too, but to the public he is known as a famous liar because the media focused on it for years). About a week ago the somewhat crypic press release (lacking context) revealed that Huawei connections got the PAC in trouble with the US government, which possibly put direct pressure on the PAC. Here’s how this press release started: “Thank you for your inquiry regarding concerns with a member subject to an Entity List Ruling.[1] While statements in the Executive Order prompting the listing used language granting a broader scope of authority, the Huawei Entity List ruling was specifically scoped to activities and transactions subject to the Export Administration Regulation (EAR).”

Who did the Linux Foundation speak to when it said “Thank you for your inquiry regarding concerns with a member subject to an Entity List Ruling”?

Did some fellow members complain? The final words: “If there is a unique situation of concern, we encourage you to reach out directly to legal@linuxfoundation.org.”

Earlier today we wrote about the increasing likelihood of China's adoption of GNU/Linux at a much larger scale. What might the US government do next? It certainly has a lot of control over the PAC and ways to punish/blackmail it (e.g. removal of the non-profit status or revocation of licence to operate).

This post is a bit of a preview or a look behind the scenes; it’s the subject of ongoing research into the PAC’s strands of work, including the new initiative for “surveillance capitalism” in an ‘urban’ context (companies like Uber and Google, along with “smart cities” and “edge”). We posted many links about this in recent days, weeks and even months (when it was first announced with little additional details). We are also studying the PAC’s media ties (connections to external sites), which do exist but are difficult to decipher (especially money flow, if any, not just staff moves that are simpler to detect). More about training partners ought to be known too; it’s no secret that the PAC nowadays promotes Microsoft Azure at some capacity.

“There are many interests and various powerful corporations in the mix; it’s only rational to attempt to figure out what they want and what they do to their PAC.”We are still not sure why McPherson left (or was pushed out) and Clapper’s former spokesperson became the Linux Foundation’s. McPherson seems to be working in academia now; some colleagues of hers (also alumni of the PAC) moved to media companies. There’s growing suspicion and some evidence of a connection. The Linux Foundation (LF) links to sites of its alumni and these alumni, in turn, write many articles about Linux Foundation projects and sponsors. “I’m trying to find out why the push for Yocto,” one reader told us, “what push does LF have with members for involvement with these projects no one uses? The recent Forbes article about Clear Linux… is that paid for too? The push to use LF projects by partners/members, I guess is understandable. Buying magazine space to promote… seems shady. Need facts.”

We are certainly going to write more about these subjects in weeks or months to come. We also depend on readers’ input, however meager, so we welcome feedback if not leaks (the latter is rare). There are many interests and various powerful corporations in the mix; it’s only rational to attempt to figure out what they want and what they do to their PAC. Microsoft is only one of several [1, 2], so it would be wrong to focus only on this one company.

04.16.19

GNU/Linux is Being Eaten Alive by Large Corporations With Their Agenda

Posted in GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, OSDL, OSI at 8:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Asset stripping GNU/LinuxAsset stripping the GNU

Summary: A sort of corporate takeover, or moneyed interests at the expense of our freedom, can be seen as a ‘soft coup’ whose eventual outcome would involve all or most servers in ‘the cloud’ (surveillance with patent tax as part of the rental fees) and almost no laptops/desktops which aren’t remotely controlled (and limit what’s run on them, using something like UEFI ‘secure boot’)

THE WEB is a noisy place. Many people have something to say and several people say that Microsoft “bought” the Linux Foundation (LF) 3 years ago. We keep seeing that claim. In many ways, today’s LF and Microsoft are “on the same page,” so to speak (“Microsoft Loves Linux”, WSL and so on).

“Jim Zemlin, who said his job was to pay Torvalds, pays himself and some colleagues more than he pays Torvalds, as the LF’s IRS filings reveal.”Weeks ago we saw Microsoft staff writing for the Open Source Initiative (OSI) after Microsoft had paid the Open Source Initiative a big bunch of money. Things change rapidly; neither the LF nor the OSI said anything at all about reports that Microsoft is still using patents against vendors that ship Linux. The President of the OSI has spoken on the subject (even as recently as two years ago), but that changed after Microsoft joined the OSI. We mentioned this a year and a half ago.

Going back to the LF, what exactly is it doing? Jim Zemlin, who said his job was to pay Torvalds, pays himself and some colleagues more than he pays Torvalds, as the LF’s IRS filings reveal. They might (by now) be paying themselves up to a million dollars each, tax-exempted, per year, in this ‘non-profit’. We think that the LF needs to improve, not be ended/disbanded. It started similarly to OSDL, but money and power appear to have corrupted it. The LF nowadays engages in a lot of political activities; it even brought in top officials from US politics. Its nature is largely political and it favours large corporations. About a year ago — seeing that LF was no ordinary foundation and was hardly about Linux anymore — a sentiment shared among journalists whom I spoke to — I decided to refer to it as “Zemlin PAC”, just like “Vista 10″ or similar wordplays.

“Months ago Torvalds ‘escorted’ himself out, came back weeks later (from that ‘penalty box’) and has said nothing particularly critical/negative since.”I think that at this moment in time the LF can do a lot better to restore trust. There are various timeline-related issues that led to people souring and distrusting LF, including removal of community members from the Board and adding Microsoft to it (because Microsoft paid). Then there’s the CoC controversy. It is formally called Code of Conduct and it applies to events, mailing lists etc. The LF’s site describes rules by which LF can remove (escort) people out of premises. Months ago Torvalds ‘escorted’ himself out, came back weeks later (from that ‘penalty box’) and has said nothing particularly critical/negative since. I was recently told that in FSF/LibrePlanet too someone was threatened with removal. I thus worry that this influence can continue to expand, reprimanding those who resist it using social means or social engineering.

Similarly, those who claimed to be protectors of Linux from patents turn out to be rather useless or even worse than useless since Microsoft joined them. The LOT Network, for instance, is just a patent pool, which claims to be defensive. If you check who’s behind it (foundations and management at present), you soon realise they are pro-software patents. Additionally, as Bruce Perens put it, OIN exists to protect software patents from us, not us from software patents. LOT is similar. Where does the LF stand on the subject? It never talks about it anymore. In the same message Perens called the LF a GPL infringers’ club (Microsoft is a serial GPL violator). Perens remains a key person in the OSI (he’s also OSD author), but nowadays he’s there among Microsoft staff.

“In the same message Perens called the LF a GPL infringers’ club (Microsoft is a serial GPL violator).”Our concerns are generally shared with many of our readers, one of whom wrote to say (all lowercase, formatting adapted a little but message contents preserved), “hey, red hat did get purchased shortly after github (though not by microsoft, they were purchased by ibm.) what is this, the 80s? “linux” is a lie lasting nearly 30 years. the lie is that linus torvalds created it, and there are multiple generations of people who make that mistake. he was given far too much credit — and people even attribute their “freedom” to his work. we will get back to that freedom in a minute. [...] simon phipps used to say that it’s simply a petty insignificant argument, like life of brian’s “peoples front of judea” vs. “judean peoples front.” the insignificant argument is that free software means anything apart from “open source.” that is an extremely disingenuous claim, given what open source has done for 22 years. no, it’s more like deliberately minimising the work and sacrifice from most of the world in world war ii, and giving all the credit to the americans for coming in later and winning it. the icing on the cake is that phipps conveniently ignores the fact that it is actually open source that started that petty argument themselves. (thanks eddie izzard) [...] “linus! where the fuck have you been?” [...] “having breakfast!” [...] “we are like free software, except better.” is a meme that has co-opted free software for more than 20 years. and it isn’t just co-opting, and rewriting history to paint themselves as more important — they take money for it as well! [..]. hating microsoft is “a disease”, according to torvalds. [...] in light of his recent comments that facebook is also “a disease”, (no argument there) one must ask about this blatant double standard– at what point exactly does a technology company go from being a company which the hatred of is ‘a disease’, to a company that is ‘a disease’ itself? how can torvalds tell the difference? because if he were consistent, he would say that “hating facebook is a disease”– but of course, it isn’t. [...] this is from you mentioning it on pirate.party: every time open source makes something free, something less free comes along for the ride. ubuntu tries to make universal packages — which require you to register for their apple-like app store, and which is now heavily promoting microsoft visual studio code, an ide which brings microsoft telemetry onto your “free” operating system. [..]. at worst, they can go back to the courts and present it as evidence that “yes, these developers (all free software developers) are stealing our property, and we wish to force them to stop.”– to end development of gnu and linux. at best, they can weasel out of any requirements to follow the license, which becomes void when issued by people who don’t “own” gnu and linux. and that seems like the most likely future — microsoft eventually not only rebranding linux (as azure) but relicensing it on their own terms, as “we clearly own it.” [...] important exception: and for the organisations that have met us halfway, and called it “gnu/linux” along with us? it would be unfair (or even dishonest) to pull the rug out from under them, and simply call it “gnu” in that context. insomuch as people only call the operating system “linux,” it is reasonable to call it gnu. recommended reading: benkler-complexity-and-humanity | zero-dollar-laptop | eff-statement-on-assange.”

03.26.19

The Linux Foundation is Not About Linux

Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, OSDL, VMware at 6:43 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

It used to be, but not anymore

Linux Foundation logo

Summary: Linux Foundation (LF) objectives/missions do not resemble what the Open Source Development Labs, Inc. (OSDL) was founded to accomplish; this puts at grave threat the very raison d’être of both GNU and Linux

THE more we write about the Linux Foundation, the more feedback we receive from readers who teach us things we didn’t know and which these readers feel urged/eager to mention (albeit anonymously, or to be quoted under the condition of anonymity).

“Many corporations are associated with it, so people don’t want to be painted as troublemakers or — at worst — sexist/racist…”The Linux Foundation is big business, it’s big money. Many corporations are associated with it, so people don’t want to be painted as troublemakers or — at worst — sexist/racist (corporations increasingly use these angles to whiten their reputation and condemn critics of these corporations’ supposed “causes”). I certainly saw Microsoft trying this on me…

A reader has just told us that “the board members of the Linux Foundation consist of people from Google, Facebook, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle and many more names I strongly dislike. Is that normal for a foundation like that? I’m a longtime Linux user wondering why the Linux desktop is not moving forwards, I never read about this before…”

“Hi, Roy,” wrote another reader this morning. “You mentioned Ken Starks yesterday in your article about the LF. He might be a source of even more information on the LF if you ask him, I don’t know for sure but perhaps. He’s apparently still struggling through terrible hardship while doing great work. I guess it would depend on how and why you ask.”

Our reader points out, using the links below1,2, that Starks is still active in trying to get GNU/Linux to children in need.

“…a lot of people will be unlikely to want to criticize the LF directly.”
      –Anonymous
Starks isn’t alone. But these people are apparently reluctant to speak out against something called “Linux Foundation”, fearing it would somehow be framed as being anti-Linux or anti-Torvalds (who is bossed by LF, or by Zemlin, who is in turn bossed by the Board that can presumably fire him). The leverage comes from the very top, i.e. the Board, which now includes Microsoft.

We have not made inquiries ourselves; some readers do so. “However, as you point out,” the above reader continued, “a lot of people will be unlikely to want to criticize the LF directly. Also the way you present the information you uncover will matter a lot for [sic] how what in unearthed gets received.”

“Findings,” as per another reader (writing about support for children’s use of GNU/Linux), are that there’s “1. support in the form of online learning for a group that installs offline labs. 2. support in the past not currently to send speakers to Linux Foundation event — to speak at their conference…”

We wrote about this earlier this morning (Linux Foundation support and what it means by “support”). In my personal view and in my experience (with the LF or its staff), the LF is almost entirely PR. Just look who holds the key positions and receives the highest salaries. Days ago they tried to “befriend” me online. It didn’t work. It’s their job to guard their image, I understand that, but if the goal is to quell dissent, I would not bother… Novell tried this on me over 12 years ago. If nobody speaks out because of approachable, friendly staff, who will?

“None of the funding for travel, food, expenses or equipment was procured through support by Linux Foundation from what I was told and what I saw.”
      –Anonymous
If anything, the LF’s outreach only motivates me to look deeper. What are they trying to silence or suppress? “We don’t need to do this series quickly as the subject matter is timeless,” I recently told a reader, so “I will build up pertinent facts and publish bit by bit.” I’ve been verifying the facts meticulously. Nobody has (yet) pointed out factual flaws or inaccuracies.

In an earlier post of ours Kids on Computers got mentioned. “Kids on Computers set up Pi and maintain many labs in Mexico,” a reader told us. “None of the funding for travel, food, expenses or equipment was procured through support by Linux Foundation from what I was told and what I saw. In fact, Kids on Computers is suffering financially, last I knew. I could get some numbers, but let’s just say they needed and need funding. The discounts for training is really moot in this case — it’s a ridiculous notion. I am going back and asking ‘has anyone in any of the labs you maintain (10+) in Mexico ever used any of these training opportunities?’

“This “support” is a very sad and lame attempt to seem supportive — without doing anything,” the reader continued because “these labs… are OFFLINE [and] these users speak Spanish…

“The Linux Foundation was intended to pay Linus [Torvalds] and maintain standards.”

“The Linux Foundation was intended to pay Linus [Torvalds] and maintain standards.”
      –Anonymous
What has the LF turned into since? We’re probably going to write about their courses and events separately (in the future), but in the meantime not enough people have paid attention to how the salaries exploded (what kind of “charity” pays people like a million bucks a year)? Based on ProPublica, the IRS has had nothing (public at least, as this is the latest and last) since 2016, so we assume that this “charity” now has $100,000,000 or more in turnover (annual). That’s massive. If they double the salaries, accordingly (doubling the turnover), that’s nearly a million bucks a year for a dozen or so staff members. But that’s not what matters (the money); it’s how they use that money which matters and it feels as though LF staff tries to silence/suppress people who investigate it.

It is our understanding that some people blocked Bryan Lunduke (or something along those lines). Jim Zemlin blocked me in Twitter several years ago. If they don’t want to be studied or politely questioned, we shall do yet more of that. In the spirit of freedom, including freedom of expression/speech.

Does the LF respect free speech at all? The CoC suggests otherwise.

The person who donated server resources to Techrights quit Alpine Linux a couple of hours ago (after he had worked on the project for a decade) and wrote: “My only regret is that the project moves in the direction of political correctness over software freedom, and convenience over open governance.”

He had previously opposed Alpine Linux colleagues for playing along with Microsoft in their WSL ploy (Windows disguised as “Linux”, i.e. classic EEE).

“My only regret is that the project moves in the direction of political correctness over software freedom, and convenience over open governance.”
      –Anonymous
What does the LF help with? Putting GNU inside Windows? What about GNU/Linux desktops? It seems like “adding Netflix” (DRM) is the priority now.

We think companies can directly help projects like Debian instead of giving money to LF (to pay a million bucks a year to “executives” in a tax-exempt “non-profit”).

“I have had it with their [LF's] accepting sponsorship from VMWare (especially from what I heard about not releasing the GPL’d code),” one reader said, “their adoption and recommendation of the Censorship Covenant – especially after the horrible behavior by the author, and the fact this controls speech.”

This reader continued: “I have said, the Contribution Covenant is a boil on the ass of our community…”

“I have said, the Contribution Covenant is a boil on the ass of our community…”
      –Anonymous
That perhaps is another subject worth tackling. By covering the European Patent Office (EPO) quite a lot over the past half a decade we missed the chance to comment much about the LF’s attitude towards the GPL and the whole VMware affair. On the CoC we only wrote this very short post last year.

We welcome input from readers and maybe, some time in the near future, contact the above people, including Bryan Lunduke, a former Microsoft employee who keeps alerting that Microsoft hijacks the LF.
_________

  1. [Old] Ten Years After – Part 1

    Fortunately as it played out, that worry was a waste of emotional energy. Not that there weren’t problems in the beginning. There were, but once I was able to show these students a few simple ways to avoid Windows and Linux bumping heads; these kids dug in and began to learn. As it turns out, it wasn’t the students I needed to worry about. Others with much more sway were waiting in the wings to undo months of preparation and success. People that, with ill intention or not, could sink the good ship Linux, at least locally on my end. Initially, some of them did quite a bit of damage.

  2. [Older] Ten Years After Part III – A Storied Conclusion

    While Alton’s case isn’t the norm, it’s good to know that he picked up on the Linux desktop without a lot of drama or angst. However, that too isn’t the norm. As promised in the first part of this “Ten Years After” series, I’ve went over all of the questionnaires and emails and there are only three real “issues” these kids could find to mention, and I mean mentioned in force. Don’t get me wrong, there were a lot of different types of complaints, but they were, to be honest, nit-picky at best. I don’t think anyone will find any surprises here. So here they are.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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

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

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

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

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts