Even those that predominantly profit from non-free software… It’s being "sold" to the public as a matter of "ethics" as if there’s something inherently moral about for-profit corporations. There’s a perception that control is being passed (of the FSF and by extension GNU) from the founder to corporations which exploit the work.
This year the conference offers corporate sponsors “thank yous” ( it's in the brochure) and there’s understandably some anger. “People who oppose corporate takeovers are being spun as racist, sexist and so on.”LibrePlanet was a sign of things to come. As for the Linux Foundation, we’re being told that Torvalds (Linux founder) is “sexist” or “rude” and therefore he should have no control over his own project (let Microsoft, Oracle and others control it through their foundation). Rejecting one’s founder? The OSI has just done that too. Even back then Stallman was being silenced or threatened somewhat (even months before what some in the Free software community call “Free software 9/11″). Last year we wrote a number of stories about censorship at LibrePlanet. Īlex is not associated with Techrights, but some of the things he wrote over the past week resemble stories we occasionally hear. IN PART ONE and the introduction we highlighted a number of things we had heard from numerous sources and had experienced ourselves even before Alex started writing about it. Summary: It seems to have become somewhat fashionable separating high-profile projects and institutions from their founders at the FSF, thankfully (at least for now), the founder still has a foothold Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux at 5:11 am by Dr. Inside the Free Software Foundation (FSF) – Part II: The Majority of the Board Supports Richard Stallman
0 kommentar(er)
