Hostile party WTF? (Re: CTI - Making a decision for glibc.)

[Maxim Kuvyrkov]

> On Feb 2, 2026, at 06:46, Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> On Jan 31, 2026, "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Am Freitag, 30. Januar 2026, 03:09:19 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit
>> schrieb Alexandre Oliva:
>>> On Jan 28, 2026, "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Rendering control over a key piece of GNU to a hostile party is
>>>>> obviously not being done for GNU's benefit, for GNU's sake, on its
>>>>> behalf, or even in agreement with GNU leadership. 
>>> 
>>>> Please forgive my ignorance, but... What's so horrible about the 
>>>> Linux Foundation?
>>> 
>>> It's controlled by GPL violators.
> 
>> [citation needed]
> 
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/
> 
> Under that, see board membership, leadership, corporate members.
> 
> You'll probably be able to see a lot more than I can, because the site
> is heavily javascrippled.
> 
> I recall seeing a screenshot that felt like a wall of shame of GPL
> violations and disregard for users' freedom.

Alexandre,

Could you, please, clarify, what do you mean by "controlled" in "It's controlled by GPL violators." ?

My viewing of https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members shows hundreds of companies big and small.

Are they the ones controlling LF?

Are all of them present GPL violators?

Are some of them present GPL violators?

Do you have knowledge of present GPL violators having majority control of LF?


My point here is that if one takes a large-enough set of companies, there ought to be some better and some worse companies in that set by whatever metric one selects.  However, making a conclusion that the worst of the set define the properties of the whole set is just a logical error.

Looking at it from a business point of view: if LF was controlled by a small of companies -- whether GPL violators or some other small set -- it would not make business sense for the other hundreds of companies to join a foundation where their voices would not be heard.  Since that's NOT the observed case -- LF, indeed, has hundreds of members -- I don't think your statement is accurate.


Finally, I do appreciate and consider your position and your opinion in this discussion, it brings a different-than-mine perspective.  I do, however, find it difficult to consider strong statements, which could be shown to be partially incorrect.  It is difficult for me to distinguish what you say as your opinion from what you state as an objective fact.  I, personally, like to add terms like "may be", "in my opinion", etc. when I present my opinion.  And I try to add citations and references when I'm stating an objective fact.

Kind regards,

--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
https://www.linaro.org


> 
> 
>>> It's historically claimed GNU packages to be its own Linux thing.
> 
>> [citation needed]
> 
> Again, I refer you to that javascrippled website, but I recall seeing
> public certification, training and whatnot projects there that referred
> by name to GNU packages typically included in GNU/Linux distros as parts
> of "Linux".
> 
> I guess I could also refer you to this email (message-id) as evidence of
> (downstream?) influence of the GNU-erasing campaign they participate in:
> <3438495.44csPzL39Z@noumea>
> 
> Particularly the following passage:
> 
>> That said, GNU isn't really reluctant to claim the entire Linux its own.
> 
> Erhm.  Linux is a non-free kernel.  We have to maintain our own free
> fork thereof, but we do give the credit that's due by naming that GNU
> package as Linux-libre.  We don't claim Linux, we claim GNU's
> overwhelming majority of the combination of the GNU operating system
> with the kernel Linux.
> 
> The non-kernel pieces of the operating system included in typical
> GNU/Linux distros are not Linux, by the simple fact that they aren't
> part of the kernel distributed as linux-v$KV.tar.*, despite LF's and
> others' attempts to label them as such.
> 
> 
>>> It's historically worked hard to erase GNU from history.
> 
>> [citation needed]
> 
> Search for "site:linuxfoundation.org GNU" on your favorite web search
> engine, and contrast that with the amount of GNU software that they
> claim to be part of "Linux".
> 
> Also look at this thread and the strong push for LF to progressively
> coopt and swallow key GNU packages, the few that they used to recognize
> as GNU.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker            https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/
> Free Software Activist     FSFLA co-founder     GNU Toolchain Engineer
> Learn the truth about Richard Stallman at https://stallmansupport.org/