The Openwashing Shills Initiative (OSI) - Part II: Lying to the IRS is a Big Issue
In the month of May, which is not a long holiday or summertime (or summer break), the OSI said almost nothing (only 2 blog posts in a whole month), so it hasn't much to say - not even face-saving statements - so we shall proceed with our series.
In Part I we explained the lobbying issue at OSI and what it means to the legal status of the OSI. We have since since discussed and researched the matter some more. It does not look like the OSI has a strategy here, except to remain quiet and 'low profile'.
On the "OSI lobby issue", as one person told us, it is crucial to understand how it presents itself at present (not just to IRS), e.g. what is the "OSI list corp status?"
Because "according to [the] Wikipedia page, the OSI had lost their corporate status years ago, so I don’t know how effective the complaint against them with CPPA is going to end."
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) chose to ignore serious privacy breaches at the EPO, pretending it was a private company (which it clearly isn't).
This changes the dynamics a little.
"However," said the person, "if and when someone files a complaint about the lobbying" that will quickly change for the better.
They say that the only way to reliably keep a secret is to reduce the number of people "in the know" to one.
Right now, in and around the OSI, many people know what's happening. Stefano can't "take 'em' out". He already banned some people, but this merely vexed others. It moreover emboldened whistleblowers (who are too afraid to talk about their displeasure in public; they boil inside while the OSI defames and deplatforms legitimate critics).
At the moment we have "smoking gun" proof that the OSI lied to the IRS, but we'll leave that aside for later. We'll need some American citizen/s to inform the IRS and do so properly.
"I would really need more proof in order to file it myself," one reader told us. "That could do some serious damage because if they lost their nonprofit status and they don’t have their corporate status, where would that leave them?"
Revisit "Microsoft-Sponsored OSI is Probably Not Even the Real Steward of the Open Source Definition, It's More Like an Identity Thief at This Point (Like "FSFE", a Microsoft-Sponsored Imposter of FSF)" because it is very relevant to this.
The OSI of today pretends to be something that it is not. █