01.15.20
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
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
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.07.20
Posted in Debian, Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, OSI, Red Hat at 6:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
If “openwashing” is painting a proprietary whole as “open” (because of a mere portion), perhaps we need a new word for systemd (where all the code is “open” but access to it for contribution and for proper assessment is close to impossible)
The OSI’s Board, literally brought to Microsoft. This photograph may be suppressed as it’s very difficult to find it (or anything about this SF meeting; much like Richard Stallman’s speech at Microsoft’s HQ, which even the FSF kept uncharacteristically secret until it was over and seminally reported on by Microsoft itself)
Summary: Packages such as systemd (“packages” would be an understatement — that’s like calling Linux a “package”) present a new kind of threat, which some in the community have dubbed “Open Source Proprietary Software” (or “OSPS” for short); we need prominent groups and projects to highlight the nature of this threat, which serves to promote monopolies (open gateway into complexity, aided by silence and complicity)
THE OPENWASHING agenda at the OSI is now facilitated by the very same people who run it and profit from it ‘on the side’. Look no further than the culprit and legal hire (conflict of interest/s likely), who last week caused the resignation of the OSI's co-founder. We don’t want to name any names here.
“Look no further than the culprit and legal hire (conflict of interest/s likely), who last week caused the resignation of the OSI’s co-founder.”A growing number of people nowadays speak of IBM and systemd, taking note that it’s still being developed on Microsoft servers and long ago became far too large for people to properly study the source code (reading it is one thing; comprehending it is another). That’s just one example of ‘code dumps’ (akin to ‘document dumps’) as a substitute for freedom-respecting source code (or “code available” rather than “please modify and improve”). If one company — and one company only — develops some piece of software (which becomes incredibly bloated and impossible to avoid), how “open” is it really? This, some of our associates believe, is an issue the FSF ought to speak about. Maybe it wasn’t foreseen. There’s no need to ban anything; an advisory note of caution may suffice. But remember that Red Hat pays the FSF and gives instructions to it (in the open).
“If one company — and one company only — develops some piece of software (which becomes incredibly bloated and impossible to avoid), how “open” is it really?”Yesterday we spent some time studying the past two years’ meeting minutes of the OSI, leading up to the resignation of the OSI’s co-founder, who is no proponent of systemd. He participated in many of these meetings of the OSI, debating licensing aspects in particular. And no, he’s not present in the Microsoft photo op shown above. We previously thought he would be a decent successor for Stallman at the FSF, but seeing his public response (in Twitter) to the almost-forced resignation serves to suggest otherwise. One thing is for sure though: the FSF and the OSI both need strong leadership, which currently both lack. The person or persons in charge have earned some levels of notoriety in Debian and there are more lingering concerns over them succumbing to corporate interests and sometimes taking money from those same corporations. And please note, still no names. Our readers might know who we’re alluding to, but we describe these issues in general terms, at low risk of making it seem like a personal attack on anyone in particular.
Nothing would please IBM more than a derailed Debian, a subverted OSI, and infiltrated FSF. It would leave many people overly dependent if not reliant on grossly overpriced support contracts with people who can handle and tackle the extreme complicity they themselves created at Red Hat. Remember that IBM is a longtime monopolist — as its ongoing patent policy serves to remind us — with little evidence to suggest any of that has changed inherently (except on some superficial level). And IBM works closely with Microsoft even after buying Red Hat, which also considered selling itself to that other monopolist (Microsoft).
For those failing to see the Debian-OSI-FSF connection/overlap, look closely at OSI archives; they stated upfront there were no conflicts of interest/s, but there were relational ones. Moreover, the overlap in boards — not to mention awards — can be revealing at times. Names? Sorry, no names. We’d be accused of personal attacks and violation of privacy for daring to ‘name-drop’ anybody at all. The Linux Foundation uses a similar strategy (it’s considered “toxic” to bring up legitimate concerns, which can be spun as envy, opportunism, racism, sexism and so on).
“Yesterday we spent some time studying the past two years’ meeting minutes of the OSI, leading up to the resignation of the OSI’s co-founder, who is no proponent of systemd.”Going back to the FSF, hours ago it published a statement [1] (more text below). Having failed to meet goals/targets, “extra incentive for people to join the movement [have been extended] until January 17th. To assist us further, our friends at Technoethical are offering a 5% discount for @FSF members until this date as well.”
What does the FSF plan to do about IBM now that it’s taking IBM money? We wrote about this angle last month and back in October [1, 2]. █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
In the final weeks of 2019, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) welcomed nearly 300 new associate members. That is a strong achievement, but we to boost our numbers further in order to continue our work to educate others about free software and defend copyleft.
Every day, millions of new people globally are gaining access to software, and are integrating it into their lives. We need to continue to spread the message of software freedom far and wide to reach these newcomers, and the millions of longtime software users who are unaware of how proprietary software is being used to exploit and abuse them. It’s a big challenge.
At the beginning of this new decade, we’re inspired to dream up a freer future. To help turn this dream into reality, we’re extending our membership drive and our offer for exclusive associate membership gifts as an extra incentive for people to join the movement until January 17th. To assist us further, our friends at Technoethical are offering a 5% discount for FSF members until this date as well.
Will you start out the new decade with an FSF associate membership?
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.04.20
Posted in Free/Libre Software, OSI at 2:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Covered hours ago (Perens resigning): A Microsoft-Sponsored Open Source Initiative (OSI)
Summary: Bruce Perens already complained about OSI, which he had set up, two decades ago, later adding that there was a plot to replace Richard Stallman (which he hadn’t approved of); now he’s officially out
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Law, Microsoft, OSI at 11:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Mr. Phipps assured me this would not happen after OSI had taken Microsoft’s money (despite Microsoft’s ongoing attacks on software freedom)
Summary: Today’s Open Source Initiative does not seem so dedicated to software freedom or even to Open Source; money from proprietary software companies can’t have helped and the above photo op says it all (OSI Board at Microsoft)
Bruce Perens (Open Source Definition) on Thursday January 2nd at 05:43:15 UTC 2020, quitting his own creation 22 years later:
Josh,
Well, it seems to me that the organization is rather enthusiastically
headed toward accepting a license that isn't freedom respecting. Fine, do
it without me, please. I asked Patrick to cancel my membership, and I would
have unsubscribed from OSI lists, including this one, if your server was
working. I own an interest in 10 Open Source companies and manage a 50
Million dollar portfolio investing in them. That will keep me involved
enough.
Thanks
Bruce
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 9:18 PM Joshua R. Simmons <
josh.simmons at opensource.org> wrote:
> That's out of line, Bruce. I'm not sure where this FUD is coming from, but
> it's inappropriate.
>
> Regardless of my own views, I quite value Bradley's contribution, as well
> as Van's engaging the process and responding to criticism in good faith.
>
> I've been following the discussions closely and, frankly, it seems a
> decent model of critical civil discourse. Let's keep it that way.
>
> (Apologies for the re-send, had to square away some issues with my mailing
> list membership.)
>
> Josh Simmons, VP at Open Source Initiative (Tax ID 91-2037395)
> @joshsimmons <http://twitter.com/joshsimmons> | josh at opensource.org | 1-707-600-6098
> | bluesomewhere on Freenode
> ad astra per aspera 🚀
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 8:53 PM Bruce Perens via License-review <
> license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
>> Don't waste your time, Bradley. They were told not to listen to you,
>> either.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 6:29 PM Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at ebb.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I can't find an example when OSI approved a novel copyleft license that
>>> hadn't yet been used in practice and therefore had no track record of use
>>> for any FOSS project. It was once somewhat common for OSI to approve
>>> licenses that were used by only one entity, and most of those licenses
>>> were
>>> never used beyond the one project, and even most of those entities have
>>> deprecated those by now. (OSI also made a decision to cease considering
>>> such single-use licenses.) Rapid acceptance of a novel licenses, so far
>>> unused in practice, causes confusion in the FOSS community.
>>>
>>> Folks have shouted down Bruce as he wonders how Van's license will be
>>> used
>>> in practice. I think Bruce has made a useful point on this thread: as a
>>> general matter, it's relevant that we consider how the license impacts
>>> users' *and* software publishers' software freedoms in *practice*, not
>>> merely *in theory*.
>>>
>>> In that regard, I'd like to know if the project that plans to use this
>>> license will be inbound=outbound (i.e., is the entity that's promulgating
>>> this new license willing to bound themselves by the license terms)? Van,
>>> could you tell us, on behalf of your client (who appears to be the only
>>> potential licensor interested in this license), what their contribution
>>> plans are regarding this license? Are they planning to accept
>>> contributions
>>> under this license, and thus be bound by it for their FOSS projects?
>>> If not, why not?
>>> --
>>>
>>> Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him
>>>
>>> Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:
>>> https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> License-review mailing list
>>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>>
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
>
--
Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
Press coverage (may misrepresent the above, with context): Bruce Perens quits Open Source Initiative amid row over new data-sharing crypto license: ‘We’ve gone the wrong way with licensing’
In Russian: Брюс Перенс покинул организацию OSI из-за разногласий, касающихся лицензии CAL
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.02.20
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Humour, Microsoft, OIN, OSI at 5:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Follow the money (some profit if Microsoft wins this duel)
Summary: How many/most GNU/Linux users feel nowadays, emotionally and institutionally orphaned or homeless when various groups are paid by Microsoft to spread the lie/fiction that “Microsoft loves Linux”
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, OSI at 1:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Openwashing agenda (lack of enforcement of the brand) seems to have already taken over the OSI, whose sole/main purpose/function nowadays is raising money from proprietary technology giants to help them maintain the perception — for mere slash funds (0.0001% of corporate profits) — that they’re somehow “open”
THE OSI’s “Happy New Year!” post (published hours ago) looks like this:
But OSI lists Microsoft as a sponsor not once but three times (twice as GitHub, hence thrice in total). Microsoft was even in the board of the Open Source Initiative (OSI), as we pointed out last year. Their board members pushed Microsoft’s agenda in the OSI’s blog. The OSI also receives money from the Linux Foundation, which is in turn mostly funded by proprietary companies looking for openwashing ‘perks’.
“… it seems like many remaining Free/Open Source companies are being devoured by a proprietary cabal. So the same goes for the OSI itself.”This relates to what we wrote about the FSF yesterday. How much influence do these pertinent members even have at the OSI? Almost nothing. Maybe election rights, albeit not actual seats.
Who gets the real power at the OSI? Let’s examine the list of the “campaign contributors” (so to speak):
Go ahead and count how many of these are actually Free/Open Source companies. The ones I recognise are not among “Premium Sponsors” (all are proprietary, nonprofits, or companies that merely provide support). Maybe Rocket is OK, depending on their business model. Among normal “Sponsors” Mozilla is OK. The rest? Meh. Some actively harm the actual Free/Open Source developers. Notice that even Red Hat isn’t a sponsor (IBM is). Doesn’t that tell us something? Red Hat isn’t sponsoring the OSI, but its proprietary parent company does.
Being cynical about all this isn’t unusual. Sure, past OSI leadership included Red Hat staff. But it seems like many remaining Free/Open Source companies are being devoured by a proprietary cabal. So the same goes for the OSI itself. They merely ‘follow trends…’ █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.02.19
Posted in Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, OSI at 3:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
They’re chocking on their own blood and complaints are being filed by former insiders (for financial fraud)
Summary: More people are starting to ask questions about Free software while “Open Source” languishes (people can see it’s just a mask for proprietary software); it was a two-decade delaying tactic that’s wearing off (people see GitHub and the OSI/Linux Foundation for what they really are)
MICROSOFT threw lots of money at GitHub, as it had done previously at Skype. By trying to buy a monopoly or near-monopoly Microsoft soon lost that monopoly. People fled. In the case of Skype it was competitors such as WhatsApp (Facebook), not to mention Google, Apple and smaller players like Viber (Rakuten). What’s replacing GitHub? We’re not entirely sure as not many statistics are available, but earlier this year we heard (possibly from the inside, albeit indirectly) that GitHub was losing users and projects. Never mind the likely decrease in new users and projects (entrants).
“That so-called ‘Arctic vault’ won’t go to waste. Microsoft can be buried in it.”We’ve written a great deal about openwashing and GitHub (any project on GitHub ought to be well aware that it is being managed by proprietary software that spies on and censors not only developers but also users/downloaders). Azure is apparently still losing money.
We predict that in the coming years this attempt of Microsoft to hijack GNU/Linux and ‘FOSS’ (they pretend only what’s inside GitHub counts or exists) will fail spectacularly. That so-called ‘Arctic vault’ won’t go to waste. Microsoft can be buried in it. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.03.19
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, OSI at 7:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Software Freedom won’t be accomplished with proprietary things like Chrome, GitHub, Linux-powered surveillance ‘clouds’ and Linux-based listening devices
Summary: Openwashing and similar tactics have helped malicious software portray itself as the very opposite of what it really is (and confuse the public to the detriment of Software Freedom); even the concept of "Ethics" has been hijacked
“Open Source has won!”
How many headlines like these have we seen in recent years?
What they mean to say is, the openwashing of proprietary software is “mission accomplished!”
“This phenomenon is like a “Cancer” or “Disease” or “Disaster” and over the past month about 80-90% of news articles I’ve seen about “Open Source” aren’t about Free/libre software but some phony ‘open’ thing that’s actually proprietary software (or gateway towards it).”“Microsoft is an Open Source company…”
How many articles and sometimes headlines tell us that ludicrous lie?
Seriously. How many? Loads. We responded to a wave of these articles last month. It wasn’t the first such wave. Think of it as the journalistic equivalent of articles/headlines that tell us Facebook values privacy (usually parroting what some lying executives from Facebook publicly said).
We get the same feeling any time European Patent Office (EPO) presidents like Campinos or Battistelli tell us they value “Quality”, “Transparency”, “Respect” and so on.
“To me, personally, the whole Open Source ‘movement’ (more of a corporate campaign) is dead.”Over a month ago we ended our Openwashing Reports altogether — just a week or two (fortnight) after we spoke of the need to make these daily rather than weekly because the “openwashing” phenomenon had spread spectacularly. This phenomenon is like a “Cancer” or “Disease” or “Disaster” and over the past month about 80-90% of news articles I’ve seen about “Open Source” aren’t about Free/libre software but some phony ‘open’ thing that’s actually proprietary software (or gateway towards it).
To me, personally, the whole Open Source ‘movement’ (more of a corporate campaign) is dead. Unless its goal all along was just to hijack the FSF’s work and then ‘defuse’ it. If that was the goal, then well done, you’re succeeding. The FSF lost almost half of its Board members in a month.
“Open Source is dead. Long live (or be resurrected) Free software.”So later today we will, as usual for Sundays, have an extensive section on “openwashing” in our Daily Links; there’s too much of it all to break down and explain individually. That used to take many hours every weekend when we did the “Openwashing Report”; how many hours? All in all, nearly 7 hours per week. That’s too much. Let’s instead put it like this. Open Source is dead. Long live (or be resurrected) Free software.
So-called ‘journalists’ who write stuff like “Open Source has won!” wouldn’t know Software Freedom if it hit them right in the face. They’re more like corporate writers going by the official ‘script’ — like the people who nowadays run Linux.com while promoting proprietary software in their personal sites (‘on the side’; also promoting non-Linux stuff and bashing Linux). Two examples of this yesterday (SAP), but we won’t link to either of these…
As for the official “Open Source” site (OSI), look under “Sponsors”. Microsoft is listed there three times — more than any other company! It figures. From publishing the Halloween Documents (exposing Microsoft’s attack on “Open Source”) to be sponsored by Microsoft, which lies about “Open Source” and attacks in all sorts of ways (still). Whose mission was accomplished? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA