We prepared a white paper for the containing recommendations about as encouraged last November:


Please discuss it or endorse it by replying to this thread.
The paper will be delivered on January 31.

A first draft was shared in December with:

* april.org @aprilorg
* fsfe.org @fsfe
* fsf.org @fsf
* Aral Balkan @aral
* waag.org @waag
* sfconservancy.org @conservancy
* gpl-violations.org
* commonsnetwork.eu

@fsi This is an important, timely, and well phrased report and the framing of temporarily-open licenses vs forever-open licenses is brilliant.

PS. @conservancy is funded by Google (sfconservancy.org/sponsors/) and I protest at my name being included in a list that includes them. If you’re happy taking money from surveillance capitalists like Google, we have nothing in common.



We were not aware that @conservancy is financed by Google. Thanks for pointing this out!

The choice of including the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) in the paper was inspired by the role of Bradley M. Kuhn in the creation of the Affero GPL (sfconservancy.org/blog/?author).

Since an involvement of Google conflicts with our standards (as stated in our statute wiki.f-si.org/index.php/F-Si_S), we have removed the SFC from the white paper. Anyhow, they have not provided any feedback to it.

@fsi @conservancy Thank you. It’s important to send a message to organisations that purport to champion freedom that they cannot do so while being funded by surveillance capitalists.



Are you not concerned that that money that could have been used to fight the corps will now be used for something non-beneficial?


You're implying that the donation was intentional attempt at buying out the conservancy and not just a PR stunt to boost Google's image by donating to some random non-profit

If you have some proof for that I would like to see it

@fsi @conservancy Update #2: Looks like @fsfe – Free Software Foundation Europe – is also funded by Google (fsfe.org/donate/thankgnus-2018)

The Free Silicon Foundation has now removed them from the whitepaper also.

I don’t even know what to say anymore. Disappointed doesn’t even begin to cover it.

@aral @fsi @conservancy @fsfe don’t let it get you down. You can only take one step at a time. Well done for noting and pointing out where funding issues are a conflict of interest. Others may now consider there own initial sources of funding going forward if they wish to be in theses spaces/ debates of privacy and free software.

@aral @xerz

We did not suspect that Google is since 2013 not only **a** sponsor, but **the main** sponsor, of the Free Software Foundation Europe @fsfe :
fsfe.org/donate/thankgnus-2013 . Thanks for the hint!

This is like if ExxonMobil was financing Greenpeace.

Just like for the SFC @conservancy above, we removed the from the white paper.

@fsi @aral

I don't think "main" is quite accurate: rather "the biggest", many years in a row.

@fsfe : for more transparency and the concerns raised here, how about publicly stating a precise percentage for any donator above 10%?

I do see that in 2017: fsfe.org/donate/thankgnus-2017 and 2018: fsfe.org/donate/thankgnus-2018
Google's donations to FSFE covered no more than 10% of the budget.

This suggests that there are statistical fluctuations of the Google contribution to FSFE oscillating around 10%.

@fsi @aral @xerz @fsfe @conservancy Like that Privacy Conference at the University of Amsterdam some time ago. Main sponsors were Google and Palantir.

@fsi @aral @conservancy Quick question, isn't Google funding kinda unavoidable? As far as I'm aware organizations like the FSF and OSI are too

@xerz @fsi @conservancy Nope, it’s not unavoidable. We’re not funded by them. @Framasoft isn’t funded by them. Last I checked, @waag wasn’t funded by them… shall I go on?

No environmentalist organisation is funded by ExxonMobil. And if they tell you they are, well, then you know they’re not really for the environment.

@aral @fsi @conservancy I guess they are just taking the money expecting it will make a trojan horse out of the free software movement? Still, I've checked, the FSF(E) takes it, Conservancy, SPI and Debian take it, the Linux Foundation takes it, Apache takes it, GNOME takes it, KDE takes it, naturally Canonical and Red Hat take it - so that's almost all of the community.
@aral @conservancy @fsi In particular, it doesn't seem like there's a significant conflict of interest issue since from what I understand no one *depends* on Google to be sustainable. But yeah, along with others like Facebook, it is kinda like environmentalists taking money from oil companies.
@aral @conservancy @fsi (oh, and I didn't mention OSI and Eclipse, which take the money too)

@fsi @aral @conservancy That's very silly; the fact that Google is one of their sponsorsthem doesn't mean they have influence; The conservancy does a lot of good for a lot of free projects without pushing the projects to do anything. They've got enough morals not to take shit from Google.

@fsi @aral @conservancy Fucking hell. I didn't donate to FSF or GNU because Stallman, so instead donated to SFC, and now it turns out they're a Google front org? Just lovely. There's nobody left to donate to.

@bamfic @aral @fsi @conservancy Whoa, hold on there. I fully agree that taking money from Google creates a conflict of interest, but even taking large sums from them is very different from being a front for Google.

@aidalgol @aral @fsi @conservancy Yeah, harsh choice of words on my part. Just got aggravated at seeing them as the first sponsor listed.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

mastodon.f-si.org is one server in the network