SFC (a Splinter Group, Not a Conservancy) Uses 'Man and Baby' to Find or At Least Look for Sympathy Amid War on SFLC and Its Chief, Professor Eben Moglen
The real acronym is "Software Freedom Conservancy" and the name is misleading because it keeps trying to cancel rather than conserve the roots of the GNU GPL, which it opportunistically takes (or makes) money from.
Yesterday:
Moglen's position statement:
The splinter group SFC, which sells literal "thank-yous" to corporations, recently said that it was raising money from mysterious rich people who "match" donations. Yesterday afternoon my wife noticed that the SFC had published an interview with "man and baby"; she said she read more about it because she found the baby thing (or angle) curious but then she realised there was no connection to the baby. The headline names this baby.
To me, personally, it looks similar to the post Madame Karen Sandler did weeks ago, portraying herself as a dying hero on her death bed or something, begging for money even though she has earned a quarter million dollars a year. You poor baby... running out of money yet?
So my wife still asks, what's the connection to the baby? She also asks, what code did Sandler actually write? My wife has a Computer Science degree, whereas Sandler has a law degree which she said publicly she'd only use for "good" and "pro bono"". Well, attacking Eben Moglen (SFLC) and Richard Stallman (basically the people behind GNU and the GPL, which Stallman explained in Ukraine just before the Russian invasion) is not exactly "good" and she makes vastly more money than them. That's not what pro bono means.
But remember, as per this "Supporter Interview with [man and baby]" [1], if you give money to the SFC, some rich people will give them more money and you also support cute little babies.
Contrariwise, if you stick to the people who actually made the GPL, then SFC wants you to think you pay someone “DERANGED,” “rogue,” or “a thug.” To quote Eben Moglen's official response/statement from October [2]...
All these ad hominem attacks on Moglen and on Stallman typically come from close associates of the SFC, including Matthew Garrett and his buddy Sharp, who now receives a 6-figure salary from the SFC to become a Cancel Officer or cancel mob ringleader, pretending that SFC is magically ethical because it recruits the people who viciously attack Linus Torvalds and his kernel 'deputies', libelling them in public and humiliating them with false accusations.
About 2 weeks ago Garrett complained about "rapists" in events. He's doing it again. Yes, Mr. "you're missing out" for not looking for sex at FOSS conferences (that's Garrett) keeps saying it. Maybe he is just projecting (his own behaviour), hoping to shift attention to others. He and his spouses (yes, plural) know that there's a deeply troubling history of indecent exposure in front of uninterested men. Sick or deviant behavior from this couple compels them to project, accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of, including transphobia. We'll write about this later in the year and also present court documents to support these assertions. █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
Supporter Interview with Elijah (and Oliver!) Voigt
-
Noises Off
We have received inquiries about a recently-published “Joint Statement by Free Software Foundation Europe and Software Freedom Conservancy Regarding Eben Moglen and Software Freedom Law Center.”
Concerning matters in litigation SFLC speaks only through its legal filings. Former SFLC employees Karen Sandler and Bradley Kuhn have brought these same claims to the US Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, seeking an order to prohibit me from questioning them under oath in SFLC’s action to cancel a fraudulently-acquired trademark—depositions which they have now been avoiding for five years. Our recent filings contesting their motion are therefore all that we can say at present. The sworn statements of Kuhn, Sandler, and Kuhn’s psychotherapist also provide valuable context.
Background concerning FSFE’s involvement in this matter can be found in a Code of Conduct complaint I filed with FSFE in October 2020. FSFE never investigated my complaint. The present statement suggests a sudden interest in these events. One would think that the first order of business would be that long-delayed investigation. Our request for an independent investigator given the parties charged, which has been pending for three years, should now be honored.
It seems to have become fashionable in the US these days to call opposing counsel “DERANGED,” “rogue,” or “a thug.” I have been a lawyer, a legal historian, and a teacher and trainer of lawyers for nearly forty years; I know why this conduct is dangerous and unacceptable. But we are each personally responsible to the courts whose officers we are for maintaining the dignity of justice. This matter is in the court’s hands, put there by those who are now shouting at me in the street. Perhaps when the tribunal has ruled it will be appropriate to respond further.
Please email any comments on this entry to press@softwarefreedom.org.