The Software Freedom Conservancy Folks Don't Even Believe in Free Speech and They Act As Imposters (Also in the Trademark Arena/Sense)
Some years ago we showed that the Software Freedom Conservancy was censoring critics of IBM or people who say IBM exercises too much control inside GTK/GNOME (it is a factual statement by the way). The Software Freedom Conservancy was already establishing a reputation for itself as a G(I)AFAM censor/gatekeeper. We didn't lose sight of it. In more recent years we saw Software Freedom Conservancy aggression or 'micro'-aggressions (can be a lot worse, yet subtle) against SFLC, not even limited to the controversial lawsuit. In this past winter I published "Software Freedom Conservancy: Not as Harmless as It May Seem". I argued that the Software Freedom Conservancy's behaviour was "potentially grounds for a lawsuit not just over trademarks." They're just trying to weaken the FSF and take the SFLC's lunch. They use the "social justice" card to paint themselves as morally superior or something; it's a shallow façade, but many people in social control media (or Microsoft-sponsored censorship platforms such as Reddit) fall for it and "play ball". It rewards groupthink, even if it lacks logic or the supposed rationale is inherently flawed.
The Software Freedom Conservancy is litigious not just against alleged (or obvious) GPL violators. All that "cyborg" and "pro bono" nonsense is a smokescreen dished out from the oversized ego of Karen Sandler, who brings home about a quarter million dollars a year and who is friends with the anti-RMS camp (yet another example of the FSF offering awards to people who later attack the FSF). Why does the FSF fancy legitimising its foes? It is a bad habit.
Regarding trademarks, years ago Sandler bemoaned confusion in relation to trademarks; not a word was said about how "SFC" was basically a ripoff of "SFLC" (same acronym but without an "L").
Covers "confusion", which is what SFC and its friends at 'FSFE' fostered for personal gain.
Right now the SFC will be very careful not to comment about the crisis in GNOME Foundation, as there are strong connections between Sandler and them, not limited to GAFAM-funded 'scholarships' that ended up enabling human trafficking, underage work(ers), and various other unsavoury if not illegal things. Sharp, who now works for SFC, is well aware of those things and even privately spoke about the problem.
Expect SFC to quietly distance itself from GNOME - or overzealous GNOME people who had gone litigious against critics - despite obvious connections to GNOME that are still online.
A lot of these things are connected not just through activities but also through people/staff. Under the guise of diversity they keep attacking what usually turns out to be old men. Not because they did something wrong but because they want to dethrone and replace them. Some of the people trying to replace them are very shoddy coders (like Sharp) or not coders at all (e.g. Molly de Blanc and Madame Sandler).
How did we end up with power and enforcement structures like these?
An associate has meanwhile noticed that Rupert Goodwins at "The Reg [rag] has started boosting Microsoft; headsup: 2025 == 50 years of Microsoft" (lots of puff pieces already surface).
Both this associate and my wife separately bemoaned this latest SJVN piece at The Reg as well ("The graying open source community needs fresh blood"). This seems like ageism; do they want to throw proficient people under the bus just for being "old"? Is this what they mean by "DEI"? Culling skilled developers? The associate has mixed feeling about this piece, saying that it "addresses a real, severe problem in the community, however mistakes Microsofters for legitimate FOSS community members."
There seems to be an effort to gag various luminaries and replace them with GAFAM-sponsored and docile faces ("fresh blood"). This effort does tend to be GAFAM funded (SFC takes GAFAM money, even Microsoft money).
The associate has noted that "RMS, Moglen, and others are being intentionally excluded from national policy dialog." By portraying them as monsters, the GAFAM-funded crowd seeks to exclude them from invitations (or cancel scheduled/confirmed public appearances).
These are real problems. We'll revisit them another day. β