Summary: We’re supposed to believe that because “Linux” is dominant we finally have freedom; but almost all the very big companies that are using GNU/Linux leverage it for freedom-hostile purposes and keep about 99% of their code secret from us, so the fight for software freedom must go on
Microsoft is still attacking Linux whilst also taking control of the Linux Foundation (nothing funny about it, except maybe a meme or two)
Summary: Microsoft is still a patent blackmail operation; but as long as it’s bribing OSI, Linux Foundation and others don’t expect them to even talk about it… (Microsoft “loves Linux” as long as all the major OEMs and server hosts — Amazon included — essentially pay Microsoft for GNU/Linux as if Microsoft ‘owns’ it)
Openwasing is just proprietary software + clever marketing
Summary: OSI cofounders said they had sought to bring Free/libre software to a broader audience/reach; but both have since then pointed out that OSI lost its way and as of this year they have nothing to do with OSI anymore; the choice of the new President is self-explanatory in a sense (coming from the company that fought to defame and oust Richard Stallman from his own organisation! It’s also helping Donald Trump’s racist agenda, providing lots of help to ICE internment camps, so tolerance clearly wasn’t the goal but a lousy façade)
The OSI’s President comes from Google and Salesforce, two companies that oppose Free/libre (copyleft) software. Source: From his very own Microsoft (LinkedIn) profile.
Let’s celebrate settling with a Microsoft-connected troll?
OSI celebrating IBM-dominated GNOME’s capitulation by licensing at zero cost (while letting the troll carry on suing and blackmailing other companies, using dubious software patents it received from Microsoft's patent troll, Intellectual Ventures)
Summary: The Open Source Initiative (OSI) seems to represent the interests of companies that are supporting software patents; this isn’t what Free software was about, so clearly “Open Source” doesn’t stand for very much anymore…
THE OSI is no champion of software freedom. Heck, even the people who founded the OSI are no longer there and a list of sponsors says a lot about who runs the OSI (people from Facebook, Google, IBM and so on). Microsoft too is increasing its role inside the OSI, as we last noted earlier this week.
“They’re basically legitimising software patents instead of squashing them, if not in bulk than at least individually.”The GNOME Foundation’s settlement wasn’t a bad thing per se, but it’s hardly the best outcome (unless you’re IBM) and it might not be worth celebrating, as we explained before. They’re basically legitimising software patents instead of squashing them, if not in bulk than at least individually. Earlier today the OSI redefined “freedom” when it spoke of “freedom from suit for the open source software world for over 100 patents.” (Signed by the OSI’s Board of Directors)
“All these people care about is money and power, not ethics (even if they speak of “ethical” licences, wherein ethical means excluding and discriminating). The art of double-speak…”That’s basically like licensing over 100 patents of a nasty patent troll (which we’ve been writing about for years; there’s also a Microsoft connection).
So what does OSI stand for in 2020?
The OSI has also just advertised (again) “State of the Source Summit” and about a quarter if not a third of this announcement is about “Code of Conduct”; expect speakers to be employees of companies that help bomb countries, spy on billions of people and so on. But yes, it’s all about ethics and tolerance, right? Keep dreaming. All these people care about is money and power, not ethics (even if they speak of “ethical” licences, wherein ethical means excluding and discriminating). The art of double-speak…
“Open Source” is dead; in 2020 it’s just a fancy marketing buzzword of proprietary software giants. See what happened to the Linux Foundation… “Open Source” and openwashing have become the same thing.
All those people who donated to support the defence might have been bamboozled somewhat. According to press reports, the legal representatives for the GNOME Foundation came forth and did it pro bono. So where did all that money go? █
Summary: The complete compromise of the Linux Foundation is about 1-2 years ahead of the OSI’s; we can clearly see the progression of entryism by proprietary software vendors, notably Microsoft (looking for control if not a monopoly over everything)
Summary: OSI opens its doors to the Microsoft executive-led OpenJS Foundation and it represents one among many waves of Microsoft takeover (over the OSI’s agenda, priorities and messaging)
Another sellout from the OSI and more Microsoft influence? You bet! It always moves in that direction, and the issue only deepens over time. Hours ago the OSI announced it had accepted some more money and quoted: “The OpenJS Foundation is thrilled to join OSI as an Affiliate Member and we’re proud to have Myles Borins represent our JavaScript communities” (citing a Microsoft Executive).
“This is already the extend if not extinguish of this E.E.E. As we said earlier this week, OSI is about a year or two behind the Linux Foundation when it comes to Microsoft entryism.”Bossed by Ginn, who is also a fully salaried Microsoft employee and the boss (one of several) of Linus Torvalds after entering the Linux Foundation, Borins will represent the interests of things like GitHub, more so after the payout. Microsoft also bought NPM. An OSI controlled (partly) by Microsoft, as we showed earlier this year, renders the OSI truly obsolete. It’s already pushing proprietary GitHub for Microsoft while taking money not only from Microsoft but also from “GitHub” (i.e. more from Microsoft).
I’m not actually upset about this simply because I got used to it; “Open Source” is becoming more like a ‘hoax’ over time, with Microsoft buying itself the key seats in everything that can help its proprietary monopoly. The Linux Foundation, for instance, already outsources almost everything to Microsoft (GitHub) and GitHub’s COO is on the Linux Foundation’s Board, in effect bossing Linus Torvalds. We’ve already counted at least half a dozen people inside the Linux Foundation in prominent positions who are Microsoft employees.
This is already the extend if not extinguish of this E.E.E. As we said earlier this week, OSI is about a year or two behind the Linux Foundation when it comes to Microsoft entryism. █
‘Open Source’ became everything its fiercest critics worried it would eventually be
Wikipedia on entryism
Summary: The Open Source brand — like the Open Source Initiative (OSI) — stands for monopolies now, with few exceptions here and there; there’s no compelling reason left to support “Open Source” anymore (focus on software freedom instead)
THE “OPENWASHING” thing isn’t a growing trend; it’s becoming the norm. As I look over Google News results (as RSS/XML only; this is the only Google service I still use!) I realise that there’s nothing of value in it. Almost nothing. Maybe less than 10% of the whole. I see mentions of Microsoft, Google, Facebook… or projects that are GitHub-hosted, i.e. entrapped in a proprietary software cage. Lots of the results are pure marketing spam that’s FUD from Microsoft proxies such as Black Duck, demonising Free software to push proprietary stuff. We know who amplifies that stuff and why…
What on Earth is this nonsense?!
“I’d rather write more articles than pick links about how Facebook is now “open”, “Google will save us from COVID” and Microsoft “fights the bad guys…” (yes, that’s the gist of it).”Why do I still spend about 6 hours a week following and keeping abreast of this nonsense?
It’s tiring, both emotionally (exhausting!) and technically. I’d rather write more article than pick links about how Facebook is now “open”, “Google will save us from COVID” and Microsoft “fights the bad guys…” (yes, that’s the gist of it).
“And shame on you, OSI leadership (people from companies like IBM). You did this to yourselves…”Today, for the first time since 2004 or 2005, I’ve decided to just delete all the crap and never receive that again. Ever.
RIP, “Open Source”.
And shame on you, OSI leadership (people from companies like IBM and Google). You did this to yourselves…
You’re only 1 or 2 years behind the Linux Foundation when it comes to the sellout. No wonder your two co-founders are out this year, unwilling to associate with you anymore. And what next on your agenda? A “clearly defined” merger with InnerSource Commons (ISC)? Because “Open Source” is, after all, just (being) reduced to mere “collaboration” (sharing code snippets or components on GitHub)?
“Well, “Open Source” was never a genuine attempt at making Free software more widespread and popular; but at least there was that claim (from the likes of Bruce Perens).”A couple of years ago Simon Phipps repeatedly assured me nothing would change after he accepted Microsoft’s money on behalf of the OSI, soon thereafter leaving the OSI in the hands of a Microsofter (in the Board); nowadays the OSI’s official blog is routinely used to promote Microsoft job ads, proprietary GitHub and even worse things. And it’s not limited to Microsoft. Look who nowadays speaks on behalf of OSI (in public events as recent as this year’s). Look who those people work for.
Linux founder in the pool. Credit: Photo published by Thayvian, 17 January 2004 (linux.conf.au).
Well, “Open Source” was never a genuine attempt at making Free software more widespread and popular; but at least there was that claim (from the likes of Bruce Perens). If there was ever any sincerity, it’s now all lost and/or hijacked. You threw out RMS along with his baby and the bathwater. You threw up in our collective faces. We vomit back at ‘cha. █
“My 25-year-old child, the Free Software Movement, occupies most of my life, leaving no room for more children…”
I, myself, have officially given up (in early 2019 when I broke the silence; it was already too late to salvage anything anyway because entryism had gone too far)
Time to discard the systemic openwashers and make replacements; they cannot be reformed (or as Pieter Hintjens put it before his death several years ago, when groups cease to function/go astray you need to start afresh with alternatives as experience shows they certainly cannot be fixed from the inside)
Summary: Certain groups that claim to represent the values of “Open Source” are in fact promoting the interests of Microsoft, GitHub etc. (i.e. monopoly or “open” as in a bunch of monopolies like Facebook and Microsoft sharing code snippets/resources over GitHub)
THE series we did about openwashing a year ago was in some sense ahead of its time. We stopped when it felt like it had become a tad repetitive, i.e. more (and newer) examples of the same patterns — the same ‘thing’…
“Right now we have very urgent issue to deal with and pressing matter to tackle; among them — since around the time we quit the Openwashing Report — is the ousting or attempted ousting of the movement’s leadership (to be replaced by corporations though their moles — docile people to just do their biddings, take their money, no questions asked; think Zemlin).”An openwash isn’t a novel concept. When I started using the term and perhaps coined it 12-13 years ago it was heavily if not solely inspired by the term “greenwashing” (with an overlapping term, “greenwash”). The idea is to make things seem “open” or “green” when in fact they’re not. In the case of “open” it’s also a distraction from freedom. Several parts of the series dealt with the role played by the Linux Foundation and relative apathy from OSI, which was supposed to enforce or protect the term “Open Source”; several time since that series of ours OSI people used the term “open wash” or “open washing”, both in talks and in their blog last week. It’s good to see they’re at least coming to grips with the issue and name it accordingly. Given more time we’d still carry on with that old series. Instead we have a section in Daily Links for it; there’s also one entitled “Entrapment” for stuff like GitHub.
Right now we have very urgent issues to deal with and pressing matter to tackle; among them — since around the time we quit the Openwashing Report — is the ousting or attempted ousting of the movement’s leadership (to be replaced by corporations though their moles — docile people to just do their biddings, take their money, no questions asked; think Zemlin). Sure, “Open Source” isn’t — and was never — about Richard Stallman but part of an attack on him (he calls it “people who don’t agree with me” or something to that effect, to put it more politely/diplomatically). At the start of this year one OSI co-founder quit in protest and another was blocked/ousted for opposing “ethical” licences (misleading misnomer), so we know OSI is becoming somewhat of a lost cause. It keeps bragging — at least twice over the past month — about helping Microsoft. Days ago it still wrote a couple of blog items, looking for more members (i.e. money) as if Microsoft’s isn’t enough.
Microsoft monopoly is “open” now
“Always follow the money as there’s a darn good chance it’ll tell a story; to us it also explains why the FSF will never say particular things about IBM, Red Hat, systemd and so on.”Last month I wrote about another group, InnerSource Commons (ISC), which I had first noticed about a month earlier. It all leads to pretty much the same thing — “Open Source” being reduced to mere “collaboration” with zero freedom — the very thing that caused the OSI’s co-founder to resign, even twice. Follow the money and you find Microsoft and sometimes even Bill Gates as an individual. Always follow the money as there’s a darn good chance it’ll tell a story; to us it also explains why the FSF will never say particular things about IBM, Red Hat, systemd and so on. They know who pays the bill and losing that money is risky to some people’s salaries. Their problem is, once they lose their freedom to speak openly and their autonomy/credibility they’re also struggling to attract new members, let alone retain existing ones. This is in some sense related to what we cover in the “Gates Press (GatesGate)” series, with Part IV coming soon. For those who missed it, here’s part one, part two, and part three. █
“There’s free software and then there’s open source… there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with.”
–Bill Gates, April 2008
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Guest Editorial Team
Community: Get involved
RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates
Site Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content
Site Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page
IRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time
Design by Beccary and Weblogs.us · Valid XHTML · Valid CSS · Hosting by Schestowitz · Part of Bytes Media
 | |
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
