On Tue, Sep 17, 2019, at 1:38 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Claude Jager-Rubinson (cjr@grundrisse.org):
What's the basis for your interpretation/speculation of this being used opportunistically, specifically by the Software Freedom Conservancy?
(On an unsigned editorial, really?)
Lack of signatures means that it speaks for the board of directors and executives of the Conservancy. Just like a newspaper editorial. They aren't signed either but speak for the entire editorial board.
Observation of deteriorating behaviour from that and some other non-profits allegedly serving open source / free software (very notably SFLC and Linux Foundation, both rather worse IMO).
If you expected me to work to convince you, you are likely to be disappointed.
Fully agree about SFLC and LF. I'm just wondering if I missed something about the Conservancy? (Aside from that trademark dispute with the SFLC a few years ago, although I still don't really understand what was going on there).