Who Will Hold the Open Source Initiative (OSI) Accountable for Taking Bribes From Microsoft and Selling Out to Enable/Endorse Massive Copyright Infringement?
THE Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a sham. It wasn't always like this. The OSI's founders, while imperfect (or worse), were not Microsoft shills. But the OSI of today lacks both founders; one of them got banned for antagonising infiltration - a hostile attempt to alter the mission of the OSI to something else completely. Even worse than Linux Foundation.
Then there's the 2017 incident (or chain of incidents). The OSI sold out, after it had already stumbled and went through a whole bunch of scandals, including self-censorship, conflict of interest, some limited Microsoft infiltrations and so on. We've written about this for many years already.
In 2023 it's a heck of a circus, to put it politely, not bluntly (they deserve harsher words).
The OSI should have yelled out from rooftops about Microsoft plagiarism mischaracterised as "HEY HI" (AI); instead the crooks who run the OSI took bribes from Microsoft, appointed more Microsoft moles (salaried by Microsoft!), and now regularly argue in favour of proprietary GitHub and GPL violations. OSI is the enemy of OSI's mission.
Who will be held accountable for all this?
Is there anything the bylaws can do about the transition from Open Source licence shield to "plagiarism as a service" for Microsoft? Are the bylaws too among the receivers of the bribes?
Either way, today we're seeing puff pieces about Microsoft's "plagiarism as a service", as an associate calls it, pointing to another "Bill Gates says" puff piece from the New York Times about this hype bubble. Microsoft silenced a critic by bribing it. In return, it does far more than self-censorship; it does Microsoft advocacy. █