The New Series About the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and the Microsoft Entryism in OSI is Closely Related to the SLAPP Against Techrights

posted by Roy Schestowitz on Mar 03, 2025

Also based on the leading publication that they want removed (the OSI tried to censor us in all sorts of ways, e.g. [1, 2])

We have only just published the introductory part of the new series about the Open Source Initiative (OSI). At a later point we'll explain how that relates to SLAPP from American Microsofters (who both promote LLM plagiarism) against us. They and the OSI promoted GPL violations of unprecedented scale [1, 2]. There's a lot more to it which we shall cover later. It's very clear the aim is to silence and censor us, no matter the cost...

It has nothing to do with privacy or libel. It's all about censorship. It was always about censorship. That's why they've attempted to settle 4 or 5 times already (on us removing pages). We'll always turn down censorship and decline any such offers. Those 'generous' offers show they understand their "cases" have no 'teeth', they're about inducing financial strain on the receiving end. They themselves use the word "threat".

As we put it 1.5 years ago, "we recently learned that (as per information on Twitter) the GitHub class action lawsuit has started sending out subpoenas. Graveley may have been among the subpoena recipients. He has run his mouth about Copilot a lot on Twitter. Will he and Friedman ever be held accountable for what they did? $9 billion in damages is quite a lot."

That's a lot of money at stake. Microsoft hardly has that kind of money.

It also seems like the only law firm willing to do this SLAPPing is a notorious and debt-saddled boutique, stereotyped as the place that would take on any ridiculous "case" as long as it gets paid. Ethics do not matter. So at the moment we have American Microsofters trying to leech and terrorise us, just like a couple of crabs or lobsters trying really hard to drag people down (to their own level, or the bottom of the sea/bucket). This approach is doomed to fail; it just doesn't work because it's a really dumb idea or "sinister plot/ploy" to begin with, eluding all sorts of side considerations such as outside backlash or blowback. One of the Microsofters is even openly talking to (yes, in public) to the friends of the Serial Strangler, illuminating if not exposing the connections/circles he wanted hard to hide. How endearing. How foolish. We'll go into the pertinent details some other day.

It's no secret that those Microsofters have mental problems; they sought clinical help for it or joined Alcoholics Anonymous. This means that assaulting and strangling women or committing online abuses (like hijacking other people's names in IRC, making imposter accounts and then locking out the real people) might be expected, just like Microsoft employees literally stabbing their colleagues [1, 2, 3].

Why does Microsoft attract such people?

Those are the Microsofters who try to silence us. They aren't quite sane and their actions seem insane at times. People who act sanely recognise that laws exist and people who want to avoid unnecessary trouble obey them.

On the upside, these gagging attempts motivate us to write even more. They show we're on the right track. One might say we are getting "VERY WARM", as the next publications will undoubtedly explain. We touch the spots Microsoft doesn't want us to (e.g. "secure boot" was always about obstructing/blocking Windows rivals; there's ample and recent evidence).

Based on how much money they have spent so far on notoriously aggressive lawyers attempting to take down or censor [1, 2] my articles (i.e. removal without due process^*!) they consider each article I wrote to be worth over 2,000 pounds (yes, each).

But we are not for sale. The above is not "my price", either.

I value things not in currency like money because ethics matter. Truth matters. Transparency matters a lot (as prerequisite to justice). We should not live in a world where rich people can just hide what critics say about or expose about them.

To hell with money. We need justice. █

____

^* They do not want this to actually go to trial - they barely even pretend to - as they know they cannot win. This was always all about censorship - even at the cost of 2,000+ pounds per article (in lawyers' fees), which is kind of flattering in a way.