Does Sirius (still) give anything back to those whose work it is exploiting? Or does it give a shell about Free software communities?



Summary: Sirius ‘Open Source’ is in so much technical, legal, and financial trouble that now it is chasing those who criticise the company, even without naming the company or anyone inside the company; this means that on top of being a 'parasite' (preying on Free software with false labeling) the company has become a true enemy of freedom of speech, guarding misbehaving people from their critics

THE company I left is in a state of disarray. The management in question was largely exploiting and seeking to start profiting from (aka 'monetising') Free-as-in-freedom software without contributing anything back. In recent years it wasn't even adopting Free software and instead abandoning it in favour of proprietary spyware. There was no debate about it. It's a one-way relationship.

"In recent years it wasn't even adopting Free software and instead abandoning it in favour of proprietary spyware."Similarly, there was a one-way relationship with staff. People were expected to stay up all night, actually working, while some management in daytime failed to do very basic work, very fundamental tasks. High-tech labour with low-end wages may seem sustainable, but as inflation soars it becomes a stretch. Then, the company as a whole becomes untenable.

This past year I started talking privately about the situation with a friend; names of people and names of companies weren't included (not even Sirius!), but the company was eager to crush staff, silence staff, and dodge liabilities to staff.

Below we include the second part of an extensive section, which will later be supported by hard evidence.

"We certainly would have sued Sirius if it wasn't so broke and operating through shells, at least one of which registered outside the country."Sirius urgently needs to rename. It is not doing "Open Source"; instead it rips apart the infrastructure that was Open Source, replacing it with proprietary spyware (for a number of years already; this year the trend accelerated further). "Sirius Open Wash" would be a suitable new name for the company, but maybe it's too late because the company has no future anyway.

The bullying intensified months ago. Managers basically start with the supposition that all workers are guilty of something and then try to dig for "evidence" to justify the foregone conclusion, making up or exaggerating things while resorting to distortion various rules and regulations (gymnastics in logic), reaching out to things said as far back as 4 years ago (when staff had been subjected to bullying from management).

We certainly would have sued Sirius if it wasn't so broke and operating through shells, at least one of which registered outside the country.

Text from the report included below:

---

Roy does not talk about the company where he works, at least not by name. He does not mention people and clients of the company. If Roy discusses that with a friend in some chat outside of work, that's perfectly within his rights. If the company does something wrong and Roy then discusses it with somebody, that might even be a positive contribution. Nobody should be above criticism. If Roy discusses romantic relationship between colleagues without even naming them, that's perfectly lawful (there's no need to twist a romantic relationship as "living arrangement", covering up for how inadequate that is). As the main issue discussed isn't the nature of the relationship but the nepotism and abject lack of relevant qualification/s, this is a matter of broader or professional interest. It's not mere gossip and either way, nobody is named. To be very clear, informal IRC chat with one person is not "social media"; pretending that it is would be considered fact-twisting. IRC has been around since the 1980s, Roy has its own IRC network, and there are no companies or "data broker" chewing up this data. The data is maintained in a privacy-conscious manner on a server managed independently. To some people, very fundamental facts about communication tools leads to evasion of proper understanding, either deliberately or accidentally.

The accusations against Roy mostly latch onto cherry-picking of words, all that while ignoring the underlying substance, which is expressed relatively politely (no expletives, but lots of typos because it's very informal chat). There seems to be a lot of tit-for-tat over the 'teat' (to be clear, the company's high-paid managers were milking Roy for years; Roy's salary would have increased with inflation by about 40% in 12 years, but that didn't happen).

So who's milking who? ⬆