Welcome to GPLv3, by Richard Stallman (announcing the release in 2007):



Summary: We're still hoping that the FSF will explain its stance on GPL dodges such as IBM's, but that's unlikely to happen anymore

It has now been about 2 months since IBM bypassed the GPL's obligations in order to sell more of RHEL. The FSF said it would issue a statement on this matter, but it never did. Why? Fear? It did, however, in two of its Web sites (FSF and DBD), issue a statement on Google's WEI. So what is going on?

"The FSF needs to become more outspoken, not less outspoken."Is IBM above criticism now? Or does the FSF fully support what happened with RHEL?

For over a decade we've not been reluctant or shy to criticise certain things about the Free Software Foundation, including when it dodged the Ukraine question. The FSF needs to become more outspoken, not less outspoken. Be revolutionary, not stagnant. It should make allies with communities, not patrons (corporations). My former employer, Sirius 'Open Source', was a multi-year sponsor of the FSF and look how that turned out. I've got plenty left to say on this topic, but it's connected to Matthew J Garrett, the Coke Fly doing bios while doxing people and defaming people.

Today's FSF should probably "rub corporations the wrong way" rather than brush shoulders with corporations. Otherwise, others will do it. The FSF isn't feeble, just a little timid. This worsened after several coup attempts, but the FSF should rise again like a Phoenix, not rest on its laurels. ⬆

"Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better."

--Richard Stallman